Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: Front vs Rear Spring Rates

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 41-50 of 53
2013-06-17 14:21:00
#41
Originally Posted by Boostlee
@Vadim, your thought on stiff springs make the tires "skip" over bumps is correct. BUT, that is where properly valved dampers come into play.

Fast "beam" guys run over 600lb springs! Thats getting close to 1000lbs in the Honda world!


EDIT
Oh @Vadim, what I meant by my last statement is: Since not many places in relative distance to most folks here have the capabilities to have their rear beam bent, resorting to other tactics (roll cage, rear arm bushing, etc) also work as well and are much cheaper!


600lb springs is probably what the beam needs to work well, but when we talk about street cars too, it's too stiff. My Sentra used to have 600lbs springs, even with 1/8" toe in it is known as one of the fastest beam Sentra's autocrossing (when Pushoe owned it). So yes you can combat the toe in with other mods, I've been trying it too. But I would rather get the beam to 0 toe and be able to run softer springs and get the same effect basically.

Originally Posted by BenFenner
Originally Posted by Vadim
Keep in mind body roll doesn't affect handling nearly as much as people think.
Not for steady-state cornering, but it helps a lot for transitions. I think auto-x has transitions.

Originally Posted by Vadim
Watt's and Panhard take up less space
Even at stock ride height?

Autox definitely needs VERY stiff springs, but in the parking lot where our Autox is held at, I would be gliding like on ICE with too stiff of springs. This parking lot chews tires like no other, but it's local and I can't complain.

I don't think ride height matters for how much space it takes up with watts or panhard either.
2013-06-17 14:33:59
#42
600lb springs is probably what the beam needs to work well, but when we talk about street cars too, it's too stiff. My Sentra used to have 600lbs springs, even with 1/8" toe in it is known as one of the fastest beam Sentra's autocrossing (when Pushoe owned it)


I know. I have seen it beat evos in SM (as I mentioned before). HOWEVER, he had properly valved dampers on there and although you may "think" it's too stiff, it wasn't as bad as you thought (I have his EXACT suspension on my Sentra with rebuilt Koni 8610s/8611s so I should know a little of how it rides ).

I will say this: Fast track/autox econo cars do NOT make good or will NOT be comfortable street cars unfortunately

If you want a fast car that is good in auto-x (stock) class, get a STI or EVO and toss some R compounds, an exhaust and a tune and call it a day

Also, his beam wasn't bent, BUT it was/is the stock B15 beam (which you have) which had/has/have less toe.
Last edited by Boostlee on 2013-06-17 at 14-41-54.
2013-06-17 14:37:48
#43
^^ Vadim drove the car with the set up but he didnt care for it at the time and the lag drove him crazy! lol
2013-06-17 14:41:02
#44
Thanks for informing me Keo! I figured as much
2013-06-17 15:02:00
#45
Originally Posted by Boostlee
600lb springs is probably what the beam needs to work well, but when we talk about street cars too, it's too stiff. My Sentra used to have 600lbs springs, even with 1/8" toe in it is known as one of the fastest beam Sentra's autocrossing (when Pushoe owned it)


I know. I have seen it beat evos in SM (as I mentioned before). HOWEVER, he had properly valved dampers on there and although you may "think" it's too stiff, it wasn't as bad as you thought (I have his EXACT suspension on my Sentra with rebuilt Koni 8610s/8611s so I should know a little of how it rides ).

I will say this: Fast track/autox econo cars do NOT make good or will NOT be comfortable street cars unfortunately

If you want a fast car that is good in auto-x (stock) class, get a STI or EVO and toss some R compounds, an exhaust and a tune and call it a day

Also, his beam wasn't bent, BUT it was/is the stock B15 beam (which you have) which had/has/have less toe.


Your roads might be better then mine. Heck I thought 400lbs was too stiff on my roads, until I drove in Georgia, then coming home to my roads was actually nice!

It all depends on what you are going for too, I'm not competing for ranks at all. I'm out there to have fun. Which can be done on a stock B13 like @Kyle has proved at this years convention. Stock P11 was definitely not as good as the stock B13 is, can't say what a Stock B15 is like, probably not much better.

Originally Posted by Keo
^^ Vadim drove the car with the set up but he didnt care for it at the time and the lag drove him crazy! lol

The car was useless on the street, slow slow slow, FAST... tire spin. It was good for highway pulls but for daily driving it was too lagy. Yeah that suspension was rough too!
2013-10-09 06:04:00
#46
I've been looking at other cars and have found that other setups have stiffer rear springs then front too. An 05 Legacy GT has 195 F / 308 R, Tein H Tech's for L33 Altima's are 190 F / 370 R (I couldn't find reliable oem rates, Tein tries to maintain stock ratios with their drop in springs). Basically similar trends, perhaps the stiffer front is a RWD trend?

I've been playing around with different spring setups on my P11 and have some feedback too.

Tein S-tech Front (-1.8" drop) 180lbs - Rear springs (-0.8" drop) 250lbs - Front and Back on Bilsteins
Car actually handles surprisingly well, even with a pretty low roll center (big roll couple). Going so low on the front did cause the multi-link suspension to gain static negative camber and change toe.

Stock P11 front springs (120lbs) - Tein S Tech rear (250lbs) on Bilsteins
Car handled pretty decently, seemed better then B&G's front and back. The front did seem to loose traction a bit in straight line (makes sense due to 10 year old springs/shocks)

Tein S-Tech Front springs, 1" raised, (180lbs before 1" preload) - Stock Rear springs (190lbs) on Bilsteins
Handling is so so, body roll is as bad as with B&G's. What I found interesting is, under heavy acceleration the car tends to wonder around a lot. Also seems to be not as stable at higher speeds.

What I think is happening here is: With softer rear springs, as you accelerate the weight transfers to the rear and the car squats. If your rear springs are soft, the car will keep on squatting and raising the front wheels, which causes them to loose traction. By having stiffer rear springs, as the car tries to squat, the stiffer rear springs resist the weight transfer, thus contain more weight on the front springs.
Last edited by Vadim on 2013-10-09 at 06-24-23.
2014-03-08 04:48:00
#47
Another update, just came across this post from Mike Kojima, where he explains why rear springs need to be stiffer.

Originally Posted by choaderboy2
My latest stuff is based on experiances gained working with Motorsports and Nismo suspension engineer, Jeff Lesher who is a hell of a guy.

He taught me about frequency matching of the front and rear suspensions, basicaly the rear suspension needs to have a higher natural frequency than the front so bobing and other chassis exciting, traction reducing effects of bumps and undulations can be reduced. You tune so they will cancel out in 1/2 cycle.

Basicaly in a close to 1:1 motion ratio suspension like ours, this means the rear spring rates must be higher than the fronts. I am starting to do this based on his equations, using roll bars to make up the gradient in roll stiffness that this causes.

The results I have experianced so far are pretty interesting, bobing can be greatly reduced without needing more damping and the tires are getting shocked less with less bobbing and less damping. It seems to work well.

Also a big trend in the motorsports world is to adjust dampers so when you intergrate piston velocity over time the curve has an equal distribution for attack and decay. Need LDPT's to do that which are expensive but I do have the dfata loggers now.

So lately my spring rate recomendations are way different from the status qou. I will have more experiance with this so and will be changing some of the good old standard rule of thumb spring rates soon.

The OEM's are catching on with this lately. Wonder why the Spec V, Maxima, Altima and some other makes of car have such a high rear wheel rate?

Mike
2014-03-08 13:13:04
#48
Vadim, you are going to be the death of I.

I have tried to tell you this many moons ago, grasshopper!
2014-03-08 16:07:00
#49
Originally Posted by Kyle
Vadim, you are going to be the death of I.

I have tried to tell you this many moons ago, grasshopper!


O'rly, your suggestion from earlier in this thread was to continue with the stiffer front over rear springs...

Originally Posted by Kyle
Chassis weight and motion ratio of the suspension at hand as @MCarp22 touched on. I, unfortunately, cannot tell you why any manufacturer choose the springs rates they do but knowing a nose-heavy car such as all FF chassis tend to be, should get some heavier springs in the front vs. rear.
2014-03-08 18:35:28
#50
It wasn't in this thread but that works too.

P.S. I was talking about what a manufacturer does with cars, not what should be done with cars. Read the whole sentence and don't pick what you want to read.
Last edited by Kyle on 2014-03-09 at 15-12-35.
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top