Which sub <$1,500 coilover?

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by chiefshayan

I don't know nearly enough about suspension systems, but that was a great read and I think I understood about 90% of it. I've talked to the guys at FA and spoke about a 50/50 DD/Track setup and they steered me towards the 500's.

The 500 series is their golden-child and something they emphasize their advertising on and spend the most time refreshing (the 500's have been refreshed recently (v5) and the 510's haven't been refreshed in quite sometime (v4)). FA said their 500's were for occasional track-use and their 510 is for track use only.

I don't know anything either, hehe ..All the stuff I've stated, is honestly just from what I've read/researched recently lol. I'm pretty much a noob (but been into cars since the 90s...when there wasn't that many coilovers around besides the big companies)

Btw..what did FA recommend for you for spring rates?

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by CSG David

Curious to read how these will work out for you.

Btw...what tires are you running when you track your car with your stiff SRC's?? Street or race compound?

Now I'm trying to decide what rates I should really go with..and also either square, or staggered. I am thinking either 8kg square, or 9kg square...instead of my previous FR 8kg/9kg or FR 10kg/11kg rates

...I think 10kg+ would be too stiff for street tires, no??

Also, would a square setup be safer for a broader range of adjustments in regards to FR bias? I was thinking maybe having square rates would have more dynamic adjustability, in regards to experimenting with both softer/stiffer adjustments in either front to rear or vice versa, during tuning.. than to have a staggered setup with a stiffer rear (which might be stuck and always be with a "rotate'y" stiff rear car, even after damping adjustments, because it will always be stiffer at the rear regardless of damping adjustments). I know many many factors go into it (where the mounts are located/geometry, diminishing rates, etc etc) ..but from what I've read, stiffer rear rates rotate much more..and I'm unsure if I want to be stuck like that if I find out later it's something I don't want (eg: what if I end up not wanting to have too stiff a rear after driving/testing it on a track? etc..)

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by chiefshayan

The 500 series is their golden-child

he he he

[ame]http://youtu.be/orErAdC9Y8c[/ame]

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by fooddude

I know it's not specifically a "500" series coilover; but I think this picture explains it better and we can pretend that the "Generation 1" as a non(or less) digressive shock and pretend as if it was a "Street" 500 series. You can see the older/Gen1/less-digressive shock is much more stiff at high-speed shafts compared to the newer and more digressive Race damper....all while being able to be firmer where it counts in the low-speed(driver inputs) section.

Now..if you want to take it a step further (since, the Gen 1's red line on the graph is actually a pretty digressive curve still), then erase that red line, and replace it with a totally non-digressive Linear line, a completely Straight line..it would be the same at high-speed harshness and will be even worse and softer at the low-speed section... my point - a digressive shock is a more comfortable shock.

@Jenson May , Is there a reason why you guys went with a more progressive comp curve and more digressive rebound on the newer version?

[chiefshayan]

Definitely interested to see how the 510's work for you! They said 6k fronts and 7k rears. If you like the 510's I'll consider it haha. I'm cheap though so we'll see

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by fooddude

Btw...what tires are you running when you track your car with your stiff SRC's?? Street or race compound?

Now I'm trying to decide what rates I should really go with..and also either square, or staggered. I am thinking either 8kg square, or 9kg square...instead of my previous FR 8kg/9kg or FR 10kg/11kg rates

...I think 10kg+ would be too stiff for street tires, no??

Also, would a square setup be safer for a broader range of adjustments in regards to FR bias? I was thinking maybe having square rates would have more dynamic adjustability, in regards to experimenting with both softer/stiffer adjustments in either front to rear or vice versa, during tuning.. than to have a staggered setup with a stiffer rear (which might be stuck and always be with a "rotate'y" stiff rear car, even after damping adjustments, because it will always be stiffer at the rear regardless of damping adjustments). I know many many factors go into it (where the mounts are located/geometry, diminishing rates, etc etc) ..but from what I've read, stiffer rear rates rotate much more..and I'm unsure if I want to be stuck like that if I find out later it's something I don't want (eg: what if I end up not wanting to have too stiff a rear after driving/testing it on a track? etc..)

Balance is determined by spring rate, and then sways. You can use damping adjustments to "hack" the balance to your needs, but at that point, you're balancing the car by reducing grip.

If you find out it's something you don't want, you can always replace the springs yourself; springs can be had for $99-199/pair, depending on the specific model you want.

[CSG David]

Originally Posted by fooddude

Btw...what tires are you running when you track your car with your stiff SRC's?? Street or race compound?

Now I'm trying to decide what rates I should really go with..and also either square, or staggered. I am thinking either 8kg square, or 9kg square...instead of my previous FR 8kg/9kg or FR 10kg/11kg rates

...I think 10kg+ would be too stiff for street tires, no??

Also, would a square setup be safer for a broader range of adjustments in regards to FR bias? I was thinking maybe having square rates would have more dynamic adjustability, in regards to experimenting with both softer/stiffer adjustments in either front to rear or vice versa, during tuning.. than to have a staggered setup with a stiffer rear (which might be stuck and always be with a "rotate'y" stiff rear car, even after damping adjustments, because it will always be stiffer at the rear regardless of damping adjustments). I know many many factors go into it (where the mounts are located/geometry, diminishing rates, etc etc) ..but from what I've read, stiffer rear rates rotate much more..and I'm unsure if I want to be stuck like that if I find out later it's something I don't want (eg: what if I end up not wanting to have too stiff a rear after driving/testing it on a track? etc..)

It's all about the balance.

I run 16kg springs on my S2000 with 255 street tires. People say I'm crazy, until they ride in it. The sound of it, the idea of that number, the graphs, etc. don't always prove how good a properly developed suspension kit is.

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

If you find out it's something you don't want, you can always replace the springs yourself; springs can be had for $99-199/pair, depending on the specific model you want.

Ya, true... I assume the shocks would still work decent with +/- 1-2kg spring replacements... but, the shocks won't be optimally perfectly valved for the newly replaced springs (unless I get them revalved)..so I am trying to find at least a good starting point and the closest I'd be happy with.

I think a 9kg square (or 10kg square perhaps), would be a good safe starting point for me ...as I can later go with an 8kg square if I wanted to be softer, or 10kg square if I wanted stiffer, or even a 10kg/11kg FR or 10kg/12/kg if i wanted to go even stiffer and staggered...all while still being in the realm of the original damper's valving ability.

[Jenson May]

Originally Posted by solidONE

@Jenson May , Is there a reason why you guys went with a more progressive comp curve and more digressive rebound on the newer version?

That is actually a graph of the older gen 1 vs gen 2. The newer gen 4/5 exhibit more digressive comp/rebound:

[Jenson May]

Originally Posted by chiefshayan

I don't know nearly enough about suspension systems, but that was a great read and I think I understood about 90% of it. I've talked to the guys at FA and spoke about a 50/50 DD/Track setup and they steered me towards the 500's.

The 500 series is their golden-child and something they emphasize their advertising on and spend the most time refreshing (the 500's have been refreshed recently (v5) and the 510's haven't been refreshed in quite sometime (v4)). FA said their 500's were for occasional track-use and their 510 is for track use only.

The whole damper line is on Gen 5 including the 510's.

[EAGLE5]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Balance is determined by spring rate, and then sways. You can use damping adjustments to "hack" the balance to your needs, but at that point, you're balancing the car by reducing grip.

If you find out it's something you don't want, you can always replace the springs yourself; springs can be had for $99-199/pair, depending on the specific model you want.

And what shocks?

[solidONE]

Originally Posted by Jenson May

That is actually a graph of the older gen 1 vs gen 2. The newer gen 4/5 exhibit more digressive comp/rebound:

The rebound curves actually looks very progressive until the stiffer settings. At the softer setting it does not "blow off" until very high shaft speeds according to this graph. But... WOW talk about super broad range of adjustment!

I've looked at your top-of-the-line offerings and the 2-ways have a similar look to the damping curves, while the 3-way's compression curves look more like your typical digressive curve once you put the high speed adjuster into action. I've actually been looking at you guy's stuff for quite a while, but I cannot get over the strange looking digressive curves. Nor do I know how how this kind of curves will actually perform. I'm guessing like progressive damping curves at the softer settings.

Dreadnought PRO 2-Way


Dreadnought PRO 3-Way

[solidONE]

And the 3-way canister looks curiously similar to Penske. Hmmmm

[CSG David]

Originally Posted by solidONE

And the 3-way canister looks curiously similar to Penske. Hmmmm

I wouldn't discount 2-way and 3-way setups from BC Racing either (not the greatest, but way better than their 1-way variants), however, that territory comes with additional cost that I'm not sure people are interested in diving into.