Bilstein B8 -> Koni/GC

MRK20CRX:
shit...18/16, surely not for road use right? The Koni Yellow SP3 seems to be another solution for extra travel on lowered cars. It's valved the same as OTS koni yellow, but the piston rod is 20mm shorter. Have you had much experience with the KY+GC on track? What spring rates were you using?

mocchi:
that i'm not sure, as i remember reading somewhere that the B12 is called B12 because it consists of B8 + 4 Bilstein springs or something like that, hence the name.
i think 713,000EUR sounds quite reasonable for a whole kit, before VAT and delivery and australian import tax. However i could be wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MM89

MRK20CRX:
shit...18/16, surely not for road use right? The Koni Yellow SP3 seems to be another solution for extra travel on lowered cars. It's valved the same as OTS koni yellow, but the piston rod is 20mm shorter. Have you had much experience with the KY+GC on track? What spring rates were you using?

mocchi:
that i'm not sure, as i remember reading somewhere that the B12 is called B12 because it consists of B8 + 4 Bilstein springs or something like that, hence the name.
i think 713 EUR sounds quite reasonable for a whole kit, before VAT and delivery and australian import tax. However i could be wrong...

---

fixed :D haha. no way it costs 713,000 euro.
cusco zero 2 (dc2 8/6kg) is good for me. bit bumpy on steep speed humps but overall very nice.

what are you running now michael? koni+gc?

mocchi,
sorry, i misread the site haha 713,000 is a bit steep for suspension isn't it

i am yet to purchase the KY+GC. still considering what spring rates i should be using. guys in the states love going stiffer rear, softer front.
would love some opinions on running same rates front and rear and since i dont have a RSB yet, i wouldn't want to be running stiffer rates in the rear AND a big RSB upgrade.
but at this stage, KY+GC is my locked in decision.

currently back to stock suspension which i find to be a good thing after being in coilovers for two years.

considering they're only around the 1100-1200 USD range, i should be able to get them in for 1500 or so and that includes the KY, gc and
gc extended top hats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MM89

i wouldn't want to be running stiffer rates in the rear AND a big RSB upgrade.

---

Why not?

Don't bother getting the top-hats for the rear - the front is where travel is a problem.

There is no intrinsic benefit in a car remaining "flat" around a corner. If all your roll resistance happens at the front you're not going to be praising the flat cornering with the frustratingly overpowering understeer. Ground-Control offer any rates you like, you're not stuck with off-the-shelf items. I'm not convinced that it's possible to have a reasonable street setup which still performs on the track. I use 400/500 and it's quite OK on the road, but I'd like a little bit more for the times when the road is 10m wide, not 2m.

hi string,

the main reasons why i would want top hats for the rear is:

1) to me they are aesthetically pleasing

2) they contain urethane stem bushings. it may have been yourself or johnL or even someone else who mentioned that it's a good idea to swap the almost 20year old stock top hats for new top hats/upper mounts


the first part of your response seems to make sense, it will probably sink in a little bit more after a couple more reads.

im not as fussed about the performance on the street. so long as i'm not thrown out of my seat over a bigger bump, then i'm happy.
if i remember correctly, you drive an accord with koni yellows. how does 400/500 on an accord compare to 400/500 on a civic hatch?
from my understanding, with a lighter car, the rebound effect of the same spring rate as that to a heavier vehicle will be more pronounced?

can you provide some input regarding the koni SP3 shocks? are they worth the extra money?

kindest regards
michael

pretty sure johnl's the accord man while string's the ls man

*: I'm positive this forum hates me on a personal level. I was excited to write this post a second time but a third time; my heart isn't in it.

**: DA9, not Accord. The Integra is much closer to the mass/dimensions of the EG. I use DC2 Yellows with a 22mm rear ARB. Same sized tyres all round with a marginal track increase over factory both F&R.

Comfort is subjective. I drove for 100s of Km with a B20 in the boot 1cm from the glass - never moved. I don't know what bouncy means because perhaps, I haven't felt it. You certainly feel the bumps though, especially with spherical bearings disallowing longitudinal wheel movement. I think the term "crash" is appropriate. Even with 500lb/in in the rear, I feel harder hits riding my bicycle.

Lesser rant on handling: There is no value in remaining "flat" whilst cornering - weld your front shocks solid for a disastrous display of understeer. With body roll comes inevitable tyre unhappiness. If lessening body roll means happier contact patches then great - you've just optimised how your tyres behave when presented with their dynamic vertical loads. A 12f/8r set of springs gives the same* vertical loads for a given lateral force as compared to a stock setup - just with less roll and faster "response" time. You've optimised an element of a sub-optimal system. Honda decided to change the dynamic tyre loads by fitting the Integra Type-R with a huge anti-roll-bar at the rear. What spring rates will result in optimal load distribution for you? Don't know? Buy 3 sets (400, 450, 500) and try all the permutations.

My springs are 7f/9r and I certainly wouldn't want any more understeer - I find it difficult to enjoy front-stiff (which includes stock) FWD vehicles now since I feel they under-utilise the front end. If it wasn't so much damn fun (and the "rear stiff" setup really does kick-arse under power) I'd have moved on to a platform with the centre of mass at the other end.

* close enough for the argument's sake.

hi string,

i think you're wrong for once, i love reading your replies all the time. the terms used sounds all too similar to what is taught in static and dynamic motion.
please do not follow your heart's content for the sake of those who enjoy reading your feedback.

but i think i get what you mean by not to focus on remaining flat through cornering.
to be continued...

*: What I left out of my first comment was that I had written up two lengthy replies prior to the one above - lost the first one when the forum went down; "database error" and the second when I pressed some key combination which changed page and the back button didn't bring my text back... Frustrating.

The Australian dollar is quite good at the moment. If only I had spare cash I'd import a set of 700lb springs and some higher end Koni shocks.

haha i thought you were referring to some new members on the forum who despise you because you contest everything they say and
prove them wrong.

when you're saying that there is no value in remaining completely flat whilst cornering, is that because the increase (too much?) in roll resistance
will potentially decrease the available grip?
e.g. Using very stiff spring setup may cause the car to lift off the ground going over a bump at speed.

If you're ordering just the one pair of 700lbf/in springs, I'm sure spare cash is more than adequate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by string

A 12f/8r set of springs gives the same* vertical loads for a given lateral force as compared to a stock setup - just with less roll and faster "response" time.

---

Could you please elaborate a little bit on this point? Mainly regarding the same vertical loads for a given lateral force.

From what I read and understood, the vertical load is applied to the spring from above and is mainly from the mass of the car. Would the 12/8 springs not require more force to compress 1mm compared to a 4/2 set of springs?


Kindest regards
Michael

I'm not sure where to begin without simply reciting chapter 5 of Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. How much do you know about the basics, like tyre load sensitivity and lateral load transfer?

In summary: Increasing all the spring rates by a constant factor (such as 3f/2r -> 12f/8r), ignoring nasty non-linear effects, results in the same distribution of vertical load (sum of vehicle weight and down-force) over the 4 tyres for a given lateral vehicle acceleration. A front heavy car with front stiff springs will still wipe out the front tyres when the rear tyres were only half way to their peak. Since it takes 4 times as much force to compress the springs the same amount, body roll will be greatly reduced, possibly enhancing (contact patch optimisation) how each tyre deals with the vertical force it is provided with. No matter what you do though, the front track still needs to provide 2/3 of the lateral force (the burden of having 2/3 of the mass at the front). In an ideal world, should the front and rear tyres give up the ghost simultaneously?