CSG and RCE tag-team suspension Q&A thread! Ask us anything!

[Malt]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

I see what you did there...sneaky sneaky!!
I would love to understand what the multi adjustable systems do when you adjust them and what not. Holy hell 4 way adjustments? How many things can you adjust in a fricken tube?!



Music to my ears

EDIT: I now understand the error of my ways with the 18x9.5 size...I wonder what a 17x9 magnesium wheel would weigh i wonder what they would cost

For the record tire rack and several others have stated that 17*8 is the ideal width so I'm not sure why you think you need a 9 inch wide wheel. Myles at RCE helped me with my setup on my T2's so I wouldn't be too scared of double adjustable coils if that is the route you go. V3's can be more comfortable than stock while still giving you a nice bump on performance and the T2's will be a bit more track oriented while still being comfortable on the street.

Just be aware that if you lower the ride height you absolutely will need some way to adjust the camber in the rear. After three alignments trying to use something other than lower control arms I wish I had just gotten them. The cost starts adding up quickly so just be sure you know what you are getting into before you make any purchases as the last thing you'll want is to have to go back and spend even more money fixing stuff that you should have done from the start.

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

I see what you did there...sneaky sneaky!!
I would love to understand what the multi adjustable systems do when you adjust them and what not. Holy hell 4 way adjustments? How many things can you adjust in a fricken tube?!



Music to my ears

EDIT: I now understand the error of my ways with the 18x9.5 size...I wonder what a 17x9 magnesium wheel would weigh i wonder what they would cost

I could pull together a write-up based on this thread for dampers....might do that soon.

Basically 4 adjustments would be high and low piston speeds for both compression and rebound. 3 way is usually high and low for compression with 1 for rebound.

This is a fun little read too:
http://www.penskeshocks.com/assets/A...e%20Manual.pdf

- Andy

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by Malt

Just be aware that if you lower the ride height you absolutely will need some way to adjust the camber in the rear. After three alignments trying to use something other than lower control arms I wish I had just gotten them. The cost starts adding up quickly so just be sure you know what you are getting into before you make any purchases as the last thing you'll want is to have to go back and spend even more money fixing stuff that you should have done from the start.

I will admit I would refer to you guys as the experts, as I still need to figure out what I'm doing, or atleast make it look like I know what I'm doing.

I've read yes, that any substantial change in ride height (I believe it's more than 1/2-3/4 inch? Idk) requires LCAs to properly adjust camber. Another variable to add to the equasion.

[cdrazic93]

I clicked on the link. My head hurts lol

[Racecomp Engineering]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

I clicked on the link. My head hurts lol

That might not actually be the best link to star with...it's pretty heavy. It's just cool to see what's inside a good coilover.

- andy

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

This is a fun little read too:
http://www.penskeshocks.com/assets/A...e%20Manual.pdf

- Andy

That link is Gold!

Lots of great information, and very good explanations (easy to read and understand), of what all the parts inside the shock are and how they work (pistons, shims, speeds, linear vs prog vs digressive, etc., etc), as well as in-depth dyno explanations.

Everyone should read it, or at least skim through the tasty bits.

Thanks for sharing.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

That might not actually be the best link to star with...it's pretty heavy. It's just cool to see what's inside a good coilover.

- andy

Although for a suspension noobie for me it might have been a tad heavy I was still able to decipher it's contents...I think lol I had no idea there were THAT many parts inside of a (good) coilover. No wonder some of them are so damn expensive, it takes a genius just to come up with the design :O

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

Basically 4 adjustments would be high and low piston speeds for both compression and rebound. 3 way is usually high and low for compression with 1 for rebound.

Question about spring rates:

If the car is front biased in terms of weight, wouldn't you want a higher spring rate in the front to omit the extra weight of the engine? And likewise in the rear wouldn't you want a softer rate than the front to help with acceleration g forces?

Along those lines of logic I don't understand why so many companies offer like 4.5k up front and 5-6k in the rear..

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

If the car is front biased in terms of weight, wouldn't you want a higher spring rate in the front to omit the extra weight of the engine? And likewise in the rear wouldn't you want a softer rate than the front to help with acceleration g forces?

that is not how it works...


you're thinking about at a very basic level of mass being supported in space


weight distribution is by and large static, you can tip the car forward/backward/side/skew using adjustable springs but there is a practical limit to this.


a spring's function is multi-dimensional... i'll try to fish out a detailed explanation (since keener minds have already done this),

[Calum]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

Question about spring rates:

If the car is front biased in terms of weight, wouldn't you want a higher spring rate in the front to omit the extra weight of the engine? And likewise in the rear wouldn't you want a softer rate than the front to help with acceleration g forces?

Along those lines of logic I don't understand why so many companies offer like 4.5k up front and 5-6k in the rear..

7thgear is right, I think. I don't really understand what he said.

Anyway, I'll just add that motion ratios play a pretty big roll in this. The front of our cars, for all intents and purposes, uses a 1:1 ratio. (Yes, ZDan, I know it's not quite 1:1 but it's close enough for this discussion. Put the dogs back in their cage, please. ) But the back of this car is much less than that so a stiffer spring is required to accomplish the same roll resistance.

[cdrazic93]

Originally Posted by Calum

7thgear is right, I think. I don't really understand what he said.

Anyway, I'll just add that motion ratios play a pretty big roll in this. The front of our cars, for all intents and purposes, uses a 1:1 ratio. (Yes, ZDan, I know it's not quite 1:1 but it's close enough for this discussion. Put the dogs back in their cage, please. ) But the back of this car is much less than that so a stiffer spring is required to accomplish the same roll resistance.

I read the sticky that RCE posted about motion ratios, so when in reality since the rear isn't a 1:1, the 6k spring really isn't a 6k spring, more like a 3.5-4k spring?

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Calum

7thgear is right, I think. I don't really understand what he said.

what I tried to say is that lets say you have a 1000lb car with 500lb on the front wheels and 500lb on the rear wheels and 250lb/in springs on each corner


if you could move the springs (ie, adjustable perches), you maintain your spring ratio but shift the weight balance around... ie... corner balancing! But there is a practical limit to this, you're not gonna be raising the front 2" while dumping the rear 2" just to get the weight to the back in a nose heavy car because that would cause way more problems than solutions.


which is why you generally accept the F/R distribution for what it is and try to dial in the crossweight to be as equal as possible without upsetting the whole setup too much


if weight distribution is a problem, it is generally solved by removing crap, relocating crap, or adding ballast.




and more to your point, yes, the spring rates are there to achieve a desired wheel frequency for the intended application, which are impeded by suspension design and with tradeoffs being having to go stiffer to fight roll to achieve a better contact patch (not to be confused with reduction of roll!!).

[Calum]

Originally Posted by cdrazic93

I read the sticky that RCE posted about motion ratios, so when in reality since the rear isn't a 1:1, the 6k spring really isn't a 6k spring, more like a 3.5-4k spring?

That's correct.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

what I tried to say is that lets say you have a 1000lb car with 500lb on the front wheels and 500lb on the rear wheels and 250lb/in springs on each corner


if you could move the springs (ie, adjustable perches), you maintain your spring ratio but shift the weight balance around... ie... corner balancing! But there is a practical limit to this, you're not gonna be raising the front 2" while dumping the rear 2" just to get the weight to the back in a nose heavy car because that would cause way more problems than solutions.


which is why you generally accept the F/R distribution for what it is and try to dial in the crossweight to be as equal as possible without upsetting the whole setup too much


if weight distribution is a problem, it is generally solved by removing crap, relocating crap, or adding ballast.




and more to your point, yes, the spring rates are there to achieve a desired wheel frequency for the intended application, which are impeded by suspension design and with tradeoffs being having to go stiffer to fight roll to achieve a better contact patch (not to be confused with reduction of roll!!).

Wont the dampers have a large effect on the wheel frequency? To my knowledge, the system of the spring and damper is used to achieve a desired frequency. But the spring alone is used to achieve the desired roll resistance and the damper is tuned to suit.