i believe the tight coils should be on top. I know the print is upside down on them so it looks like the tight coils should be at the bottom but I'm almost positive they should be on top. I have mine setup with the tight coils on top.
Copy and pasted form the old forum
Allright peeps. I took the liberty of e-mailing Hyperco with regards to my questions. Below I'm attaching the response & explanation which I received from Hyperco engineer (Robert Stone) who actually designed the springs for B13. This answered all my questions and I hope will steer us all in the right direction. Enjoy good reading, but beware, the response is kind of lengthy.......Ta.....ta
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Peter,
You recently sent in an inquiry as to the proper installation orientation for our Hyperco Springs. I am the engineer that designed these springs for our Hyperco division. You aren't the first person to ask this question. The text below is something I pulled together a few months ago when the same question came up. I hope it you with your situation. If not, please feel free to contact me directly.
Realistically, there is very little difference in how the springs are installed. The only effect that might be noticed after the install would be related to the difference in the tip gaps at either end of the springs. The springs were designed with a larger gap at the tip of the large-pitch end. This end was intended to interact with the stamped lower spring perch. (This is true for both the front and rear springs. This orientation was how the springs were inspected during manufacturing.) Changing the interaction between the spring and perches by inverting the spring could have a small affect on the ride height. Dynamically speaking, I would prefer to see the small-pitch end toward the upper spring perch. Since these coils are inactive throughout much of the suspension travel, these coils would then count as sprung mass. If they were inactive and against the lower perch, these coils would be considered unsprung mass. With the close-wound coils at the top, the reduced unsprung mass would lead to less ride harshness. While the phenomenon is real, the effect is probably small enough that the vast majority of customers would never notice the difference in dynamics.
So, how did we get to where we are now? Basically, the part number stamp was originally put on upside-down from what was intended - both front and rear. (That is based on the part pictures from the first run of Gen 2 springs. I would assume that the second and third runs were the same. I would have preferred to have the close-wound coils against the top perch with the Hyperco stamp right-side up.) Why the silence so far? By the time we were aware of what was going on, it seems that the Forum members had worked out an installation orientation they were happy with. Public reaction was so good, we decided to not jump in and fix what wasn't apparently broken. The difference in performance is minimal. If the customer is happy, that's what counts. And, once the threads were on the Forum telling people how the springs should be installed, we didn't feel right reversing the stamps on the next manufacturing runs. (If people buy these used in the future, how will they know if they got Round 1 or Round 2+ springs? Better to leave well enough alone.)
So, if you want to be a stickler for performance details, the "right" installation would have the close-wound coils against the top spring perch and the part number stamp upside-down.
Good luck with your springs,
Robert Stone
NPD Manager
MW Industries, Inc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be the first to like this post.
Back to top
