Quote:
Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering
Lower frequencies in the rear can actually be done for more comfort or other reasons...its not necessarily the end of the world. The springs are not the only things that control the balance if the car. However, spring rates that are much much lower in the rear are not imo a good idea at all on this car. Sometimes companies do things without a good explanation.
The rates you posted might be very aggressive imo and probably a bit of a handful on a track without a big wing.
The RSR rates posted are pretty good, kudos to them. I agree that rates along those lines would be a good starting point for autox depending on other factors. An upgraded rear bar should be matched with a front if you want/need additional roll stiffness or want a quick easy way to adjust balance with those rates imo.
Cool to see what looks like a quality product coming for this car!
- Andrew
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman
Or the stopwatch. 
What got me thinking about this is that the RS-R rates seem more appropriate to balancing the front to rear frequency properly than the HKS street rates, for example. The RS-R will probably be in the suggested .9:1 range (I calculated 1:1 with my preliminary estimates) but the HKS will be in the range of 1.34:1 which can cause some uncomfortable pitch oscillations over bumps. Their numbers actually look like they would be better reversed. A little bit confusing. |
The RS-R does give a very comfortable ride, when damper rates are dropped to low end of the adjustments, even over the stock ones, and still yield a pretty usable stroke range. Oscillation issues seem to have been very well sorted on this one, making use of the ample stroke, and thereby allowing for higher rebound rates to reduce excessive motions. This is sort of how Koni and Bilstein sets behaves in performance applications are loved by autocrossers, giving you enhanced control in stages like slalom excercises and planting the driving wheel down on the ground and keeping it there. This, despite the nature of FT86's short stroke rear end by its inherent dimensions of the dampers. The initial compression is mild and almost gives a more expensive feel to the car, since the battering of unsprung weight is much more supple and compliant, while the pitch is reduced at the same time, very well with increased spring rates. RS-R has always developed i-Shocks with 'street minded" approach, and offers almost an uncanny range of more European thinking of letting the suspension do it's thing, giving a measure of predictable, compliant, and mature driving feel, and less boy-racer than most. But the easier roll and stroke control of RS-R Sports-i here, does contribute to much greater control of low to medium speed, low-inertial loading, making it perhaps ideal for things like autocross on street tires, where massive weight transfer is not always available at low speeds and making quick transitions with faster roll-center motion makes the driver more in control and ease the learning of how to drive at limits. Cusco seems to follow this convention often as well.
As for HKS, traditionally they have been a proponent of strong compression damping, giving somewhat of an opposite feel, very firm, and seems to like a hoppy, responsive ride and dynamic attributes in nature of race cars, but being a bit enthusiastic when used over rough surfaces. This holds true for most sports coil-over systems on the market today, where strong high speed stability and firm jolting ride seems more easily understood by general consumers and is effective at very high speeds, like those on a race car. High compression dampers are also used often to compensate for more inexpensive units with twin tube design which inherently have less stroke range per given length of the cartridge, especially when designed for ultra-low ride height compatibility. Some are excellent for intended use of sports driving, at high speeds and very sticky tires, but not always ideal for street if this is catered too far for extreme theoretical performance, some striking a balance in-between by different models as in HKS, Tanabe, and JIC.
Others, I am not too familiar but generally inexpensive ones almost always suffer from some elements critically lacking due to multiple applications made from simply adapting a wide range damper to be used on many different applications, and being less optimized for any single application.
I can't say though for sure on the many FT86 units though, as I've only used a lot of them in the past for S13, BMW M3, and AE86 applications.
It's all how you think and feel, and prefer... With the FRS, the sky is the limit, as the basic foundation of balance, rigidity, and driver controls are top notch, and like the old AE86, any and all modifications are easily felt and understood because of this. This is why we loved the AE86 and this is how the NEW 86 will be sure to have lots of fans among the new core driving enthusiasts.