Spring rate vs Ride comfort vs Performance database (FD3S)
07-19-15, 12:45 AM
#126
Agreed. The same thing happened with my friends 2013 5.0 mustang. The car handled and rode better with stiffer lowering springs and Koni shocks.
His coffee would spill out of his cup on his morning drive. After we did the suspension, no more spilled coffee.
In the end a spring is just a spring, the damper controls the motion and ultimately the ride.
His coffee would spill out of his cup on his morning drive. After we did the suspension, no more spilled coffee.
In the end a spring is just a spring, the damper controls the motion and ultimately the ride.
07-19-15, 05:14 PM
#127
gracer7-rx7
I'm confused... The title of this thread is Ride Comfort vs Performance but you guys are talking racing...
Ride Comfort is not a factor for racing.
Right, the thread is Ride Comfort vs Performance.
One end of the spectrum versus another end of the spectrum.
The discussion for the last several pages is because LOOKatme is saying you can have best performance AND ride comfort with the softest spring possible.
I am agreeing with this, but pointing out you cannot put a number on that spring rate as the more a driver can get 100% out of a tire, the higher spring rate he will need to avoid cornering on the bumpstop.
The bumpstop and spring is always higher rate than the spring alone, so you ARE on a higher and progressive spring if you are relying on your bumpstop as part of your normal suspension movement (aka Stock Miata).
This applies to all levels of driving - cruising or racing.
Don't focus on spring rate alone for comfort or performance. Shock stroke, damping and bumpstop are all just as important.
Change one of the above and the others need to be brought into balance.
I'm confused... The title of this thread is Ride Comfort vs Performance but you guys are talking racing...
Ride Comfort is not a factor for racing.
Right, the thread is Ride Comfort vs Performance.
One end of the spectrum versus another end of the spectrum.
The discussion for the last several pages is because LOOKatme is saying you can have best performance AND ride comfort with the softest spring possible.
I am agreeing with this, but pointing out you cannot put a number on that spring rate as the more a driver can get 100% out of a tire, the higher spring rate he will need to avoid cornering on the bumpstop.
The bumpstop and spring is always higher rate than the spring alone, so you ARE on a higher and progressive spring if you are relying on your bumpstop as part of your normal suspension movement (aka Stock Miata).
This applies to all levels of driving - cruising or racing.
Don't focus on spring rate alone for comfort or performance. Shock stroke, damping and bumpstop are all just as important.
Change one of the above and the others need to be brought into balance.
07-19-15, 05:31 PM
#128
I think another issue we are having in the thread besides focusing on spring rate as the decisive factor in Ride Comfort vs Performance is-
We are comparing something subjective- ride comfort (which is a personal preference *Cadillac ride makes me car sick*).
With something objective- performance (which we measure by racing results).
We are comparing something subjective- ride comfort (which is a personal preference *Cadillac ride makes me car sick*).
With something objective- performance (which we measure by racing results).
07-19-15, 10:12 PM
#129
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
Comfort is actually composed of two different things.
damping AND spring rate (ride frequency).
you need both in order to have a good ride.
The softer the frequency the less damping matters. I am not speaking in absolutes, but in general terms.
I attached data that I forget where I got this from who did a study of MANY different cars and people plotted if the ride was comftorable or not. these cars all had different frequencies and different damping, most were stock from what I recall. As you can see the frequency matters hugely, and you can probably see some outliers which could be damping, or personal preference by the test subject.
Overall softer frequencies ride more comftorably and offer more grip and compliance. More compliance means smoother ride by definition.
For a non lowered FD looking for comfort the stock set up with different damping might work well, for more performance slightly stiffer springs works well. I have noticed that softer rear springs work well if you don't mind being close to not having a flat ride. up the critical damping ratio of the spring (soft spring, high damping) and the car becomes firm and responsive and can absord the large bumps well with the softer rate springs. the stock design looks to have done this, soft springs, high damping and big sway bars. This is popular way to tune some cars who need compliance and roll stiffness. Lotus in the past took this approach.
running stiffer springs will lose compliance but add to roll stiffness and transitioning and will be a lot harsher ride. You will lose traction as I noticed with both coilovers I ran with stiffer springs on the street. It very noticeable when going over small bumps but lots of them of humps, humps like heavy trucks going on the road and they make the depressions on the road from use, and you drive the car perpendicular to these under acceleration. the soft springs move up and down over these easily, the stiffer springs (11K) would jump over them. small up down movements on uneven roads with stiffer springs (11-12K) leaves the car feeling darty, it moves around, the 8/6K springs are solid, in fact I would say the road is smooth as I don't even notice it much. the 11K I had to work for that speed and is tiring as I am always moving the steering wheel and controlling it. The 11K felt good, but had lower ultimate grip, I felt like I was driving the car faster but was slower. Obviously my opinion.
a frequency of 1.5HZ at say 320KG or 704lbs corner weight is a 448lbs/in (8K) spring for the front, for the rear 336 lbs/in (6K).
This will offer a good ride and performance for a street car. With more speed and stickier tires, you might want to step up to a ride frequency around 1.8hz or more depending on ride height and a bunch of other things. 1.8hz is a spring rate of 615lbs/in or 11K, rear is 504lbs/in (9K).
for a flat ride the rear should be 10-20% higher frequency than the front and why Ohlins probably chose 11K/11K.
damping AND spring rate (ride frequency).
you need both in order to have a good ride.
The softer the frequency the less damping matters. I am not speaking in absolutes, but in general terms.
I attached data that I forget where I got this from who did a study of MANY different cars and people plotted if the ride was comftorable or not. these cars all had different frequencies and different damping, most were stock from what I recall. As you can see the frequency matters hugely, and you can probably see some outliers which could be damping, or personal preference by the test subject.
Overall softer frequencies ride more comftorably and offer more grip and compliance. More compliance means smoother ride by definition.
For a non lowered FD looking for comfort the stock set up with different damping might work well, for more performance slightly stiffer springs works well. I have noticed that softer rear springs work well if you don't mind being close to not having a flat ride. up the critical damping ratio of the spring (soft spring, high damping) and the car becomes firm and responsive and can absord the large bumps well with the softer rate springs. the stock design looks to have done this, soft springs, high damping and big sway bars. This is popular way to tune some cars who need compliance and roll stiffness. Lotus in the past took this approach.
running stiffer springs will lose compliance but add to roll stiffness and transitioning and will be a lot harsher ride. You will lose traction as I noticed with both coilovers I ran with stiffer springs on the street. It very noticeable when going over small bumps but lots of them of humps, humps like heavy trucks going on the road and they make the depressions on the road from use, and you drive the car perpendicular to these under acceleration. the soft springs move up and down over these easily, the stiffer springs (11K) would jump over them. small up down movements on uneven roads with stiffer springs (11-12K) leaves the car feeling darty, it moves around, the 8/6K springs are solid, in fact I would say the road is smooth as I don't even notice it much. the 11K I had to work for that speed and is tiring as I am always moving the steering wheel and controlling it. The 11K felt good, but had lower ultimate grip, I felt like I was driving the car faster but was slower. Obviously my opinion.
a frequency of 1.5HZ at say 320KG or 704lbs corner weight is a 448lbs/in (8K) spring for the front, for the rear 336 lbs/in (6K).
This will offer a good ride and performance for a street car. With more speed and stickier tires, you might want to step up to a ride frequency around 1.8hz or more depending on ride height and a bunch of other things. 1.8hz is a spring rate of 615lbs/in or 11K, rear is 504lbs/in (9K).
for a flat ride the rear should be 10-20% higher frequency than the front and why Ohlins probably chose 11K/11K.
07-19-15, 10:35 PM
#130
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
This is from the engineers at KW and their opinion.
How would one determine if a rough ride is being caused by too high a spring rate or the damping rate. I’ve read that it’s most always the damping rate that causes the perception of a stiff ride, hopefully you can clarify.
Our street kits are tested and balanced in terms of spring/damper ratio. The guideline is sporty but comfortable in daily use, taking into consideration maximum load of the car, upper end spring rate allowance etc. Answering your question in theory though, my experience is that quite often a low ride height means less suspension travel and normally it’s this that causes a firm ride. As for the points you’ve raised, a high spring rate will decrease movement of the chassis, decrease mechanical grip and from a certain stage onwards high frequency movement of the chassis. In terms of damping rate, there are two parameters – compression and rebound. The compression is not that big a problem – adjusted to fully stiff it will cause a stiff car but it should still feel OK to drive. Adjusting the rebound to fully stiff will cause a really harsh ride – it will feel super stiff and worse to drive than with fully closed compression.
When setting up a coilover on a light vehicle with a high spring rate, how much should you preload the shock when the vehicle’s weight doesn’t compress the spring very much. I’ve helped people compress the spring and install the camber plate to pre-load the spring, but I mean the opposite where the shock isn’t at the top of its travel.
In cases where the vehicle doesn’t compress the spring very much, you should go for a softer spring. Furthermore, what do you mean by pre-load of the spring- have you wound up the perch until the main spring was pre-compressed in the normal ride height of the car? This is probably the worst thing you can do! Step back and go for a softer spring in order to create drop and travel as otherwise this won’t work!
Ask The Expert: Kw Answers Your Questions - Speedhunters
How would one determine if a rough ride is being caused by too high a spring rate or the damping rate. I’ve read that it’s most always the damping rate that causes the perception of a stiff ride, hopefully you can clarify.
Our street kits are tested and balanced in terms of spring/damper ratio. The guideline is sporty but comfortable in daily use, taking into consideration maximum load of the car, upper end spring rate allowance etc. Answering your question in theory though, my experience is that quite often a low ride height means less suspension travel and normally it’s this that causes a firm ride. As for the points you’ve raised, a high spring rate will decrease movement of the chassis, decrease mechanical grip and from a certain stage onwards high frequency movement of the chassis. In terms of damping rate, there are two parameters – compression and rebound. The compression is not that big a problem – adjusted to fully stiff it will cause a stiff car but it should still feel OK to drive. Adjusting the rebound to fully stiff will cause a really harsh ride – it will feel super stiff and worse to drive than with fully closed compression.
When setting up a coilover on a light vehicle with a high spring rate, how much should you preload the shock when the vehicle’s weight doesn’t compress the spring very much. I’ve helped people compress the spring and install the camber plate to pre-load the spring, but I mean the opposite where the shock isn’t at the top of its travel.
In cases where the vehicle doesn’t compress the spring very much, you should go for a softer spring. Furthermore, what do you mean by pre-load of the spring- have you wound up the perch until the main spring was pre-compressed in the normal ride height of the car? This is probably the worst thing you can do! Step back and go for a softer spring in order to create drop and travel as otherwise this won’t work!
Ask The Expert: Kw Answers Your Questions - Speedhunters
Last edited by lOOkatme; 07-19-15 at 10:39 PM.
07-20-15, 12:23 AM
#131
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,780
Received 2,565 Likes
on
1,824 Posts
a thing is attached to the drivers head, and it takes the movement of the drivers head and then you get a measurement in watts. lower is better.
i'm not sure its actually very common practice, the automotive OEM's tend to buy the competitors cars, and make theirs some percentage different than the target cars.
07-20-15, 12:35 AM
#132
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,780
Received 2,565 Likes
on
1,824 Posts
the FD is a good example, way back when, i had an R1, and my buddy had a 95 base model. not sure they have the same spring rate, but its close. what they do have is vastly different shock valving. mine, the road was so bumpy my neck would be sore on long drives. his would float, like a cadillac.
his was better, but neither rode very well.
07-20-15, 12:12 PM
#133
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
i think the damping is the more important of the two, but generally i agree.
the FD is a good example, way back when, i had an R1, and my buddy had a 95 base model. not sure they have the same spring rate, but its close. what they do have is vastly different shock valving. mine, the road was so bumpy my neck would be sore on long drives. his would float, like a cadillac.
his was better, but neither rode very well.
the FD is a good example, way back when, i had an R1, and my buddy had a 95 base model. not sure they have the same spring rate, but its close. what they do have is vastly different shock valving. mine, the road was so bumpy my neck would be sore on long drives. his would float, like a cadillac.
his was better, but neither rode very well.
Ride frequency with poor damping can be horrid. But you can have super high frequency springs (high rates) and the damping will never make it ride well. There just is not suspension travel.
I have ohlins dfv, I consider the valving to be good, I thought the 11K/11K spring rate was too aggressive for a 99% driven street car. I think the spring rate is fine in most areas, but there are a lot of areas where the car was damn right annoying. Those high frequency small bumps or uneven roads made the car annoying as hell as the car was transmitting the crap all to me. Soften the spring rate and I honestly couldn't even tell the bumps where there anymore. that is how big of a difference it was for me.
The damping on the stock shocks are super high in relation to the spring rate. I think in the rear it was something like 120-150% of critical damping for the spring rate. That is rediculous. I am unsure why they chose such stiff shocks.
Another thing to remember is more weight can drop a higher spring rate to a lower frequency. When I drove my car with another 220lbs passenger the car felt better and rode better. when he rode with another person the car felt more stiff. It also felt a little unbalanced left to right.
07-20-15, 12:56 PM
#134
j9fd3s
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUE TII View Post
We are comparing something subjective- ride comfort (which is a personal preference *Cadillac ride makes me car sick*).
actually ride comfort has a measurement, AND its pleasingly comical.
a thing is attached to the drivers head, and it takes the movement of the drivers head and then you get a measurement in watts. lower is better.
i'm not sure its actually very common practice, the automotive OEM's tend to buy the competitors cars, and make theirs some percentage different than the target cars.
By that measure of "ride comfort" the softer the springs and damping and the slower the vehicle is operated the better the "ride comfort".
That really is the opposite of performance!
However, in the real world the manufacturer measures "ride comfort" on the roads and at the speeds they expect the consumer to operate the vehicle and soften or harden the suspension settings based on consumer expectation (ie luxo barge vs sports car).
That doesn't sound like an objective test to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUE TII View Post
We are comparing something subjective- ride comfort (which is a personal preference *Cadillac ride makes me car sick*).
actually ride comfort has a measurement, AND its pleasingly comical.
a thing is attached to the drivers head, and it takes the movement of the drivers head and then you get a measurement in watts. lower is better.
i'm not sure its actually very common practice, the automotive OEM's tend to buy the competitors cars, and make theirs some percentage different than the target cars.
By that measure of "ride comfort" the softer the springs and damping and the slower the vehicle is operated the better the "ride comfort".
That really is the opposite of performance!
However, in the real world the manufacturer measures "ride comfort" on the roads and at the speeds they expect the consumer to operate the vehicle and soften or harden the suspension settings based on consumer expectation (ie luxo barge vs sports car).
That doesn't sound like an objective test to me.
07-20-15, 02:00 PM
#136
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
The ohlins damping are much higher quality across the entire spectrum of adjustments. The ARK's were much more limited and with the 6K springs in the rear I could only use 0-4 settings from full soft. the front I could use 0-7 from full soft with 8K springs. The ohlins I can use basically anything and the car rides well. With the damping turned way up the car rides well still, in fact its pretty firm yet still soaks up the bumps with the softer springs. Its definitely something to experience as it is definitely not as bad as I initially thought it would be (high damping and soft springs, setting 5 from full stiff).
If I go ***** out in all condition irrespective of pot holes and cracks in the road I would probably need to stiffen the car up more. I am coming close to bottoming the front in some sections (I caught my liner already). It was only in one spot where I accidently hit a pot hole going very fast. I might have barely touched the bumpstop or close to it but the cars tire caught the already tore up fender liner. The rear hasn't had any problems at all. I had the damping turned pretty soft to try new settings when this happened. I had less compression force from the shocks. I think the best setting so far is 12/12 with the softer rate springs. I might try 10/10 and see how that goes. 5/5 was too stiff. 14/14 too soft in the front. 12/12 is the winner so far.
07-20-15, 02:04 PM
#137
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
We have another guy here who has ohlins DFV who is getting his car back in August. He is running the 11/11 spring rates. We will take mine and his out and see how they fair. We can also get his opinion on everything. We can swap back and fourth and give rides to each other in the different rate springs. He has a go pro and perhaps we can do a run with that on and see how everything reacts.
07-21-15, 10:26 AM
#138
Senior Member
If you're talking about the suspension just not moving enough due to spring stiffness, suspension travel over bumps is going to be a much stronger function of high-speed damping than spring rate.
If you're talking about available travel while cornering, the stiffer spring rate will have *more* compression travel available for soaking up bumps because it doesn't use up as much for cornering loads.
I have ohlins dfv, I consider the valving to be good, I thought the 11K/11K spring rate was too aggressive for a 99% driven street car.
The damping on the stock shocks are super high in relation to the spring rate. I think in the rear it was something like 120-150% of critical damping for the spring rate. That is rediculous. I am unsure why they chose such stiff shocks.
Another thing to remember is more weight can drop a higher spring rate to a lower frequency.
The ark's with 8/6 rode smoother and gripped better than the Ohlins with 11K/11K. The Ohlins on 8/6 ride better and are smoother and definitely with a much larger range of settings than the ARK's. The ohlins 11K/11K don't ride bad by any means, I am talking about the whole high speed bumpy sections and uneven roads where the softer springs make a huge difference. The old ARK 12/12K rates had problems in the same areas. the car would bump up and down fast and shook the car. Mind you that the roads aren't that bad in terms of potholes, they are relatively smooth, but there are sections where the road isn't flat and has a whoop like surface where the car goes crazy with higher spring rates.
That's my main gripe with the Ohlins springs, IMO they should really be more like 11/8 for street-oriented but trackable, or 14/11 for track-oriented but streetable. I don't think 11/11 is a good compromise setup!
We have another guy here who has ohlins DFV who is getting his car back in August. He is running the 11/11 spring rates. We will take mine and his out and see how they fair. We can also get his opinion on everything. We can swap back and fourth and give rides to each other in the different rate springs. He has a go pro and perhaps we can do a run with that on and see how everything reacts.
Last edited by ZDan; 07-22-15 at 07:24 AM.
07-21-15, 11:17 AM
#139
That's my main gripe with the Ohlins springs, IMO they should really be more like 11/8 for street-oriented but trackable, or 14/11 for track-oriented but streetable. I don't think 11/11 is a good compromise setup!
It is true that having this higher rear rate is contrary to what we think of as "streetable" in the US.
Basically, you are making the rear of the car lose traction first with inputs as weight transfer will affect the rear contact patch faster.
I didn't realize how much rear slip angle I carried around town and in normal driving with the Ohlins on the FD until I put race buckets in and I could really feel what the rear was doing vs my *** moving around as I tried to brace myself with the steering wheel and dead pedal.
But then when I went back to driving my RX-8 and FC I felt very unsafe driving behind someone or into an unfamiliar turn without first unsettling the rear to get some slip angle back there.
I realized I had very quickly adapted to being able to adjust my line with rear slip angle from inputs and when I was driving without that ability and the possibility of understeer instead I was un-nerved by it.
It is true that having this higher rear rate is contrary to what we think of as "streetable" in the US.
Basically, you are making the rear of the car lose traction first with inputs as weight transfer will affect the rear contact patch faster.
I didn't realize how much rear slip angle I carried around town and in normal driving with the Ohlins on the FD until I put race buckets in and I could really feel what the rear was doing vs my *** moving around as I tried to brace myself with the steering wheel and dead pedal.
But then when I went back to driving my RX-8 and FC I felt very unsafe driving behind someone or into an unfamiliar turn without first unsettling the rear to get some slip angle back there.
I realized I had very quickly adapted to being able to adjust my line with rear slip angle from inputs and when I was driving without that ability and the possibility of understeer instead I was un-nerved by it.
07-21-15, 02:25 PM
#140
Senior Member
For a long time I drove my 240Z like that at the track (I had rear wheel rates ~25% stiffer than fronts). It was great fun, like having self-servoing steering, just *barely* crank in steering angle at corner entry and it would rail around corners with almost no steering effort. Wheee! Then someone pointed out that I was maintaining a ~10 degree drift angle all the way around New Hampshire's South Oval turn... I figured that couldn't be the fast setup. I ditched the aftermarket 3/4" rear sway bar and although I had to apply a lot more steering input and effort and it *felt* slower, I went nearly a second faster around NHMS South Oval configuration :O.
07-21-15, 03:01 PM
#141
No doubt.
My "racing" (solo events) is mainly low speed so I like the ability to rotate that comes with the higher rear rate. My front aero is limited by class and the car feels settled at higher speeds with the allowed rear aero.
My point on that post was how even your feeling of safety shifts to what you are used to.
On my daily driver 2008 base Mazda3 I have FD wheels w/ 205s and run ~35psi front and ~50psi rear tire pressure and it "tucks its nose" (yeah, the rear steps out) nicely on throttle lift so I can adjust my line of travel on the streets.
It just feels safe to me now.
My "racing" (solo events) is mainly low speed so I like the ability to rotate that comes with the higher rear rate. My front aero is limited by class and the car feels settled at higher speeds with the allowed rear aero.
My point on that post was how even your feeling of safety shifts to what you are used to.
On my daily driver 2008 base Mazda3 I have FD wheels w/ 205s and run ~35psi front and ~50psi rear tire pressure and it "tucks its nose" (yeah, the rear steps out) nicely on throttle lift so I can adjust my line of travel on the streets.
It just feels safe to me now.
07-21-15, 07:43 PM
#142
Senior Member
On my daily driver 2008 base Mazda3 I have FD wheels w/ 205s and run ~35psi front and ~50psi rear tire pressure and it "tucks its nose" (yeah, the rear steps out) nicely on throttle lift so I can adjust my line of travel on the streets.
Last edited by ZDan; 07-21-15 at 08:07 PM.
07-22-15, 10:51 AM
#143
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,780
Received 2,565 Likes
on
1,824 Posts
i had a chance to drive the newer 3's and if you get a manual transmission 2.0 (?), its actually a really nice car to drive, its very rewarding. compared to the old 3, the power band is more linear, the throttle actually does something after 50%. on the suspension side it moves around a lot, but it also is very responsive, and really linear, so its quite rewarding.
and it all happens on teeny little tires, so this happens close enough to the speed limit that you don't need to worry about it. the big problem with the FD is that its fast, so if the second turbo is on, you are speeding
and it all happens on teeny little tires, so this happens close enough to the speed limit that you don't need to worry about it. the big problem with the FD is that its fast, so if the second turbo is on, you are speeding
08-20-15, 02:13 PM
#144
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,780
Received 2,565 Likes
on
1,824 Posts
i was going to write a thing about how i don't really believe in the natural frequency thing, and then i did the maths on our last two race cars and they are bang on, 2 and 2.5.
although, we don't look up the book value and run that spring rate. we do try springs softer and stiffer, and generally run with whatever is fastest. we also change the rate depending on if we need to make the car do something or other.
its really more like 2 and 2.5 +/- 10% depending on conditions.
although, we don't look up the book value and run that spring rate. we do try springs softer and stiffer, and generally run with whatever is fastest. we also change the rate depending on if we need to make the car do something or other.
its really more like 2 and 2.5 +/- 10% depending on conditions.
12-30-15, 11:42 AM
#145
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Can you provide the numbers? Sprung weight, motion ratio, etc. Did you measure them yourselves?
What does 2.25 hz actually end up being in kg/mm?
BTW, do you know your damping numbers? i.e., in newtons for high and low speed bump and rebound.
I just want to see how they compare to off-the-shelf coilovers for the FD and calculate their natural frequencies.
What does 2.25 hz actually end up being in kg/mm?
BTW, do you know your damping numbers? i.e., in newtons for high and low speed bump and rebound.
I just want to see how they compare to off-the-shelf coilovers for the FD and calculate their natural frequencies.
12-30-15, 12:34 PM
#146
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
Just tying back to this thread. Another owner who owns Ohlins DFV with the stock 11KG/11KG springs has driven his car a lot. I gave him a ride in my car and he was like...OMG this is awesome in terms of comfort and performance.
He is swapping his to a 9/8 split on his car based off my recommendation of split. I still think an 8/7 would be a GREAT street set up. he is going to run a little more aggressive tire set up, so 9/8 seemed like a good choice for rates that won't kill him on the street.
He drove the 18/18KG set up as he was contemplating swapping his efr 7670 to an 8374. He said the spring rates were so stiff and the car was bouncing so bad that he couldn't fully evaluate the turbo, as the car was literally skipping across the pavement going slow. He both chuckled at it. I was talking to him about this thread for the hell of it....he states the same thing as my findings on the road we drive. He considered his 11/11 to be too stiff but acceptable for the roads, but still thinks softer is not only more comfortable but faster.
One ride in my car......that's all it took for him to change his rates.
he will be running 18x12 front and rear with 9/8 spring rates and I think it will be an absolute animal everywhere. He also had sway bars on his car and is thinking about taking them off (go to stock) to try them first, and maybe adding them back on to compare. I am on stock sway bars.
He is swapping his to a 9/8 split on his car based off my recommendation of split. I still think an 8/7 would be a GREAT street set up. he is going to run a little more aggressive tire set up, so 9/8 seemed like a good choice for rates that won't kill him on the street.
He drove the 18/18KG set up as he was contemplating swapping his efr 7670 to an 8374. He said the spring rates were so stiff and the car was bouncing so bad that he couldn't fully evaluate the turbo, as the car was literally skipping across the pavement going slow. He both chuckled at it. I was talking to him about this thread for the hell of it....he states the same thing as my findings on the road we drive. He considered his 11/11 to be too stiff but acceptable for the roads, but still thinks softer is not only more comfortable but faster.
One ride in my car......that's all it took for him to change his rates.
he will be running 18x12 front and rear with 9/8 spring rates and I think it will be an absolute animal everywhere. He also had sway bars on his car and is thinking about taking them off (go to stock) to try them first, and maybe adding them back on to compare. I am on stock sway bars.
Last edited by lOOkatme; 12-30-15 at 12:36 PM.
01-01-16, 05:57 PM
#147
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Just tying back to this thread. Another owner who owns Ohlins DFV with the stock 11KG/11KG springs has driven his car a lot. I gave him a ride in my car and he was like...OMG this is awesome in terms of comfort and performance.
He is swapping his to a 9/8 split on his car based off my recommendation of split. I still think an 8/7 would be a GREAT street set up. he is going to run a little more aggressive tire set up, so 9/8 seemed like a good choice for rates that won't kill him on the street.
He drove the 18/18KG set up as he was contemplating swapping his efr 7670 to an 8374. He said the spring rates were so stiff and the car was bouncing so bad that he couldn't fully evaluate the turbo, as the car was literally skipping across the pavement going slow. He both chuckled at it. I was talking to him about this thread for the hell of it....he states the same thing as my findings on the road we drive. He considered his 11/11 to be too stiff but acceptable for the roads, but still thinks softer is not only more comfortable but faster.
One ride in my car......that's all it took for him to change his rates.
he will be running 18x12 front and rear with 9/8 spring rates and I think it will be an absolute animal everywhere. He also had sway bars on his car and is thinking about taking them off (go to stock) to try them first, and maybe adding them back on to compare. I am on stock sway bars.
He is swapping his to a 9/8 split on his car based off my recommendation of split. I still think an 8/7 would be a GREAT street set up. he is going to run a little more aggressive tire set up, so 9/8 seemed like a good choice for rates that won't kill him on the street.
He drove the 18/18KG set up as he was contemplating swapping his efr 7670 to an 8374. He said the spring rates were so stiff and the car was bouncing so bad that he couldn't fully evaluate the turbo, as the car was literally skipping across the pavement going slow. He both chuckled at it. I was talking to him about this thread for the hell of it....he states the same thing as my findings on the road we drive. He considered his 11/11 to be too stiff but acceptable for the roads, but still thinks softer is not only more comfortable but faster.
One ride in my car......that's all it took for him to change his rates.
he will be running 18x12 front and rear with 9/8 spring rates and I think it will be an absolute animal everywhere. He also had sway bars on his car and is thinking about taking them off (go to stock) to try them first, and maybe adding them back on to compare. I am on stock sway bars.
My friend has 16/14 kg Zeal (Endless) coilovers and they're definitely stiff but not bone-jarring (might even ride better than the 5/8 kg springs on my MR2), and it's very, very fast in the corners. He wants to go up to 16 in the rear so it's a bit more neutral.
01-01-16, 10:33 PM
#148
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
What's your ride height? Rake? Tires? Running any aero?
My friend has 16/14 kg Zeal (Endless) coilovers and they're definitely stiff but not bone-jarring (might even ride better than the 5/8 kg springs on my MR2), and it's very, very fast in the corners. He wants to go up to 16 in the rear so it's a bit more neutral.
My friend has 16/14 kg Zeal (Endless) coilovers and they're definitely stiff but not bone-jarring (might even ride better than the 5/8 kg springs on my MR2), and it's very, very fast in the corners. He wants to go up to 16 in the rear so it's a bit more neutral.
Not running any aero.
How flat of roads/tracks is your friend running on?
01-02-16, 04:42 AM
#149
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
He does drive on mountain roads and they're fairly bumpy but not horribly pockmarked like some roads in the US. It is a daily driver. Stock sized Dunlop ZIIs I think, but with late-model stock aero parts.