Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 65

Thread: Effective spring rates

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Great Dismal Swamp
    Posts
    16,026
    My Cars
    E36/7 E36/8x2 E46 F25
    (400 x1.1) / 0.45 = 977.xxxx


    /.randy

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Left Coast Cali
    Posts
    1,484
    My Cars
    Z3's...
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrannon7 View Post
    Because you have converted to true coil overs in the back your rear spring rate is much lower. I think it be 850 900 lb springs in the rear for me to be that stiff. I did speak with some people that used to race E30 M3s and they ran 1100F 1050R. Very stiff, but the more tire grip and aero grip you have the more spring you need. How many events have you run with the MCS setup. They seem to be the "hot" setup. At the national events I have been to most of the class leaders had MCS stickers and were talking them up.

    Joe
    Agreed, my new motion ratio takes the 400lbs/in spring and makes the wheel rate 440lbs/in. My previous springs was a 750lb/in bee-hive spring which resulted in a 338lb/in wheel rate with a 600lb/in spring in the front.

    I've finished three weekends and six races with them, and have been very satisfied. I'm in the get in the car and drive it stage at this point, and really need to fill in my note book with some testing. As I've just finished in the top 50% in points in STU and three races at three seperate majors weekends, I'm qualified for the Runoffs at Laguna Seca.

    Quote Originally Posted by dcrothers View Post
    Tony is installing my RF dual ear next month. I'll be asking him about spring rates for my car. As a daily driver i wont be doing 800lb up front that is for sure....We'll see what he thinks.
    Tony and Joe are fab and set up wizzards, I'm very satisfied with their work on my car. I also had some cage work and replaced the pedal box with a Tilton firewall mount, which resulted in much better modulation and less flat spots (although I've still managed to flat spot, it was much harder to do and easier to get out of it). As a side benefit, the clutch is much quicker so I'm on the gas more.
    Last edited by Z3racer701; 05-19-2014 at 04:39 PM.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbia, Worst Carolina
    Posts
    2,971
    My Cars
    2000 M-Coupe, 1994 SE-R
    Quote Originally Posted by rf900rkw View Post
    (400 x1.1) / 0.45 = 977.xxxx
    He's moved his spring, not sure that 0.45 applies anymore?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    I think he is saying it would take a 977# spring to replicate a 440# wheel rate which would be close but not quite there.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Quote Originally Posted by rf900rkw View Post
    (400 x1.1) / 0.45 = 977.xxxx
    Why do we have to learn math? We are never going to use it!

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    My observation was in part based on fact I've heard numbers ranging from .42 to .45 conversion rates which are premised on a formula of a factor squared. As such, it doesn't take much to move the needle a little here or there but the point is on point. I guess I'm going to re-read that STU build thread for the reinforcement to allow for the coilover since our units are already threaded.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Great Dismal Swamp
    Posts
    16,026
    My Cars
    E36/7 E36/8x2 E46 F25
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrannon7 View Post
    Why do we have to learn math? We are never going to use it!

    I have found it a great way to end threads.


    /.randy

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Quote Originally Posted by z3papa View Post
    My observation was in part based on fact I've heard numbers ranging from .42 to .45 conversion rates which are premised on a formula of a factor squared. As such, it doesn't take much to move the needle a little here or there but the point is on point. I guess I'm going to re-read that STU build thread for the reinforcement to allow for the coilover since our units are already threaded.
    I am pretty sure he his talking about a different STU class, not the SCCA Solo STU class.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrannon7 View Post
    I am pretty sure he his talking about a different STU class, not the SCCA Solo STU class.
    I know he is. He's been road racing for years. I've read through most of thread but failed to recall what he did with his rear to support the coilovers.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Great Dismal Swamp
    Posts
    16,026
    My Cars
    E36/7 E36/8x2 E46 F25
    The wheel rate quoted is about right for using the stock shock mount point on the control arm. I would assume the top mount is tied into the cage.


    /.randy

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Left Coast Cali
    Posts
    1,484
    My Cars
    Z3's...
    Quote Originally Posted by z3papa View Post
    My observation was in part based on fact I've heard numbers ranging from .42 to .45 conversion rates which are premised on a formula of a factor squared. As such, it doesn't take much to move the needle a little here or there but the point is on point. I guess I'm going to re-read that STU build thread for the reinforcement to allow for the coilover since our units are already threaded.
    My orginal motive when replying to this thread was to post this link that I'd found useful to why the rear wheel rate to spring rate would be ~0.45:

    http://www.e30m3project.com/e30m3per.../eff_rate2.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by z3papa View Post
    I know he is. He's been road racing for years. I've read through most of thread but failed to recall what he did with his rear to support the coilovers.
    Now that's the curious thing, because I had Tony install the coil-overs, and he could have welded in any sort of reinforcement, like he did for the firewall mount tilton pedals, but he didn't. He used the rectangular clevis to mount the top heim joint and bolted through the two stock bolt holes. It doesn't even cover all of the round opening in the body, only about the outer 2/3's of it. I'm using 2.25" spring and they rub the rubberized body schultz. It's a tight fit but seems to work well.

    The rear down tubes are about 2-3 inches away and mount on the panel at the top of the trunk. I also had Tony add a cross bar from the passengers side of the hoop to the bottom of the drivers side down tube. There are pictures of each added bar.
    Last edited by Z3racer701; 05-19-2014 at 10:21 PM.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    I'd keep on an eye on your shock towers then. Most people who converted to true rear coilovers tend to implement some reinforcement to prevent mushrooming. I kinda wondered how you did that and I didn't remember it. That cross bar must be his solution to the issue.
    Last edited by z3papa; 05-19-2014 at 10:31 PM.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Spent the day in the garage changing springs, cleaning the camber plates and re adjusting the end links on the sway bar. I have noticed the following before but now it has gotten into my brain.

    I have my rear strut mounts mounted the way most people said to do it, with the bolts facing down. From the factory the mount was inside the car and the bolts were facing up. Seemed like a good idea at the time as it made it very easy to install and remove the shocks without having to struggle inside the car. Now as I am adjusting my rear ride height I again notice that at full droop there is no pre load on the springs. Now I could turn the adjusters and add pre load but then my ride height gets too high. As it is now I am at 22 3/4 when measured per the manual, only 1/2 below factory setting of 23.15 inches. So it seems to me I am wasting about 1/2 inch or more of my shock stroke and if I put the mounts inside the car I would benefit from more shock control. As it is now I leave my rear shock full soft or I get loose, this method of mounting the rear shock mounts may be a cause.

    14045302260_eece6f4f88_b.jpg
    Last edited by jbrannon7; 05-20-2014 at 03:14 PM.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    1,635
    My Cars
    1999 Z3 MC, 2000 540it
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrannon7 View Post
    Spent the day in the garage changing springs, cleaning the camber plates and re adjusting the end links on the sway bar. I have noticed the following before but now it has gotten into my brain.

    I have my rear strut mounts mounted the way most people said to do it, with the bolts facing down. From the factory the mount was inside the car and the bolts were facing up. Seemed like a good idea at the time as it made it very easy to install and remove the shocks without having to struggle inside the car. Now as I am adjusting my rear ride height I again notice that at full droop there is no pre load on the springs. Now I could turn the adjusters and add pre load but then my ride height gets too high. As it is now I am at 22 3/4 when measured per the manual, only 1/2 below factory setting of 23.15 inches. So it seems to me I am wasting about 1/2 inch or more of my shock stroke and if I put the mounts inside the car I would benefit from more shock control. As it is now I leave my rear shock full soft or I get loose, this method of mounting the rear shock mounts may be a cause.

    14045302260_eece6f4f88_b.jpg
    Keep us posted.
    I am very interested to see if you reverse the mounting plate from in the car to in the wheel well, what difference it makes in overall performance, feel, comfort and height....

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    Quote Originally Posted by jbrannon7 View Post
    Spent the day in the garage changing springs, cleaning the camber plates and re adjusting the end links on the sway bar. I have noticed the following before but now it has gotten into my brain.

    I have my rear strut mounts mounted the way most people said to do it, with the bolts facing down. From the factory the mount was inside the car and the bolts were facing up. Seemed like a good idea at the time as it made it very easy to install and remove the shocks without having to struggle inside the car. Now as I am adjusting my rear ride height I again notice that at full droop there is no pre load on the springs. Now I could turn the adjusters and add pre load but then my ride height gets too high. As it is now I am at 22 3/4 when measured per the manual, only 1/2 below factory setting of 23.15 inches. So it seems to me I am wasting about 1/2 inch or more of my shock stroke and if I put the mounts inside the car I would benefit from more shock control. As it is now I leave my rear shock full soft or I get loose, this method of mounting the rear shock mounts may be a cause.

    14045302260_eece6f4f88_b.jpg
    I think your rear shocks are worn and are sagging/coming down further than if they were fresh. I know since mine were just refreshed, and in order to bolt them up, I need to put pre-load on the springs with a jack and that is at 22 1/4" with a 500# rear spring. Before, I could physically compress or decompress the shock with force to get it to bolt up at any number of heights.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Quote Originally Posted by z3papa View Post
    I think your rear shocks are worn and are sagging/coming down further than if they were fresh. I know since mine were just refreshed, and in order to bolt them up, I need to put pre-load on the springs with a jack and that is at 22 1/4" with a 500# rear spring. Before, I could physically compress or decompress the shock with force to get it to bolt up at any number of heights.
    What rear spring are you running? Length? Mine are 650 lb 5.5", so they are very short. If I ran longer, softer springs then I would have some pre load. I don't see how shock wear could make the shocks droop further than when they were new, and I did notice this when they were new, just never thought a lot about it. According to the AST tech, there are no internal bump stops.
    Last edited by jbrannon7; 05-20-2014 at 05:39 PM.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    I'm running 5.5" 600# rear springs but have my shock mounted the same way you have it mounted.
    Last edited by z3papa; 05-20-2014 at 10:24 PM.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Do yours look like this a full droop?

    14233844071_6991fa5def_b.jpg
    Last edited by jbrannon7; 05-21-2014 at 09:12 AM.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    9,411
    My Cars
    S54 e36/8; Tesla MY LR5
    Bump.

    Christmas present time...what springs should we be putting in the rear these days? Did you guys find a magic combination?

    600? 700?

    Maybe santa will bring me some.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,518
    My Cars
    E368 / E30 M3 / 997 GT2
    Want to post some info as Scott and I have been discussing this for a little while.

    I'm running TC Kline DAs with their recommended spring rates - 400F and 500R. I have the rear shocks turned all the way up to keep the back end from sagging excessively while turning or accelerating.

    I'm going with Ground Control SAs this time around. Their recommended rates are 440F and 660R. Having driven this setup I can confirm it is way, way better.

    I just ordered 600# springs for the rear of the TCK car to match the 400# fronts. I'll report back once they're installed.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Bloomington, Illinois
    Posts
    6,189
    My Cars
    2011 E92 M3, 2007 335i
    I ended the season with 500F/700R no rear bar and have a multitude of other spring pairs with rates including 600F, 650R and 750R, if I am correct. On top of that, I have access to many other spring rate pairs from a shared library. I will be in a position to sell the leftovers once my car sells or the AST coil over sells since I'd like to give the buyer their choice of rates.
    Now in E92 M3 ZCP -- Absolute beast

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Salem, Nh
    Posts
    1,657
    My Cars
    01 Z3M Coupe
    I'm running 350 rear 750 front with rear coilovers, with a rear bar
    Similar discussion about spring / wheel rates here
    http://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/sh...of-development

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    9,411
    My Cars
    S54 e36/8; Tesla MY LR5
    So to those running 600-700# springs, for those of us running 500# or less, are 600-700 extremely jarring/harsh/bad on normal roads or do they seem OK for weekend drives and back roads while making the car handle more predictably at autocross/track events?

    Sounds like 600+ is the way to go and the only thing stopping me is not knowing if they make the car too hash to enjoy on the street.

    While the 100# increments sound like large changes, these effective rates show the jumps aren't really that much. If that's the case, maybe there isn't much to worry about by upgrading to 600-700# springs.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,518
    My Cars
    E368 / E30 M3 / 997 GT2
    I drove Asim's car with 440/660 springs and didn't find it too jarring. FWIW I'm running 550/672 on my M3 (AST 4100) and it's not jarring at all. That said, the ASTs are miles better than any Koni based suspension I've run.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palm Harbor, Florida
    Posts
    2,122
    My Cars
    2000 M Roadster
    Scott, I think some of it depends on your shocks. I am running 750 rear with AST monotubes and the rear is very compliant, in fact I think the rear springs are not firm enough for the shocks which I now have set full soft. If I go any firmer on the rear shock rebound setting the car gets very loose. No rear sway bar and new trailing arm bushings. I have 525 on the front and that can be jarring.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •