When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Originally Posted by davidc1' timestamp='1473624109' post='24059670
Thanks for the links. It was interesting reading.
So, the first article I discount because the author says the car has had the i-VTEC engine since at least 2001, and that the top goes up and down in 6 seconds. Geez.
Reading the rest of the article it does indeed appear that the Type S suspension in not the same as the CR like I thought. A couple articles seem to imply it's stiffer than the base suspension and a couple imply it's the same as the 08 base suspension.
A couple articles imply that the suspension went though 3 changes in Europe, although in the US it was a continuous changes pretty much every year.
Regarding the leaking, if you call the bonnet what we call the hood, and you call the hood what we call the roof, then I understand what he is saying. I though the previously mentioned article the guy was saying it leaked where the A pillars met the hood, meaning around the cowel.
And I was all excited to see the link to the english version of the accessory catalog, because then I'd be able to look at all those strange things available in Japan. Alas, the only stuff I saw in the catalogue that isn't available in the US was the cargo nets behind the seats, and the one piece floor mats.
So, it looks like those Modulo Type S shocks are NOT the ones that are in the Japanese Type S, because nobody in the article mentions them being adjustable. But, it does look like the shocks were an official Honda option.
Thanks again for the links though.
You're welcome.
It is worth noting that British car journalists will basically repeat whatever is in the press pack. The best example of this was the assertion that the Z4 had the fastest folding roof, which we know is not the case (watch the Top Gear comparison on YouTube to see Hammond bemoaning "that's what it said in the brochure").
Given that several magazine's mention the Type-S = 2008 OEM in their articles, I suspect that's what Honda told them.
And yes, the bonnet is the thing that covers the engine, the hood is what covers the passenger compartment, sometimes also known as the roof.
AFAIK, the modulo shocks (and wheels) have been available for a long, long time.
Too bad the yen/$ exchange rate isn't better. We could buy some of that weird stuff in the Japanese accessory catalogs
So I keep coming back to this thread. I want better understand how wheel rate for springs and wheel rate for swaybar combine to effect total wheel rate (obviously this is cornering wheel rate, as swaybars don't contribute significantly during squat like from accel or decel).
In the thread below SakeBomb Garage has measured the spring and swaybar motion ratios:
Damper motion ratios are: 0.589 Front and 0.578 Rear
ARB motion ratios are: 0.492 Front and 0.343 Rear
Since:
Wheel rate = Spring Rate * MR^2
Therefore:
Front Wheel Rate = Front Spring Rate * 0.347
Rear Wheel Rate = Rear Spring Rate * 0.334
(because .589^2=.347 & .578^2=.334, its easier to use these values, and create above formulas)
So for swaybar its:
(Is below correct, I don't know if maybe swaybar rate is doubled since both ends of bar bend during load transfer)
Front Wheel ARB Rate = Front Swaybar Rate * 0.242
Rear Wheel ARB Rate = Rear Swaybar Rate * 0.118
Now here is TwoHoo's spring rate chart: (with new columns I added for the Wheel Rates)
So, armed with motion ratio and spring rates, we can use the wheel rate formulas above to determine wheel rate for springs for each iteration in chart, and wheel rate for swaybar for each iteration. I've filled these in in chart above. But how do you combine wheel rate for spring with wheel rate for swaybar, to determine the Total Wheel Rate? To fill in the last two columns in chart?
Is it simply Wheel Rate for the spring + Wheel rate for the swaybar? When I try that it doesn't line up with TwoHoo's weight transfer charts published further up in this thread. What is the formula? Want to fill out the rest of this table.
Last edited by Car Analogy; Jan 24, 2017 at 04:13 PM.
I have an 02 AP1. Need advice on what brand of suspension system to get that is out of the box install. I do not do track, this is more day to day driving and I do not know where to start. Research I have done so far keeps showing racing style upgrades.
I was alerted to the fact that due to a Google Drive policy change for file sharing, the old PDF link wasn't working. I've fixed the permissions issue, and uploaded a very slightly edited version: mostly formatting, but also adjusted spring free-lengths by a few hundredths of an inch (doesn't change spring rates, which are independent of free length).
First thanks greatly for the article. I used it with Rob Robinette's spreadsheet to engineer the suspension I put on My05. When acquired, it had stock bars and a set of lowering springs that made it difficult to drive on typical roads and made it a little more "tail-happy" than desired. Wanting to see what I could do with OEM components, I played around with the parameters from your paper in the spreadsheet and decided to try 01 rear springs on the front with 02 rear springs on the back. I managed to grab an 01 front bar from salvage. The result was a suspension between the My09 and the CR in overall balance. It drives like a dream on the road. The stiffer bar really keeps it flat in turns and if you push it the tail comes out but much less than before. The one undesirable characteristic is it sits higher in the front like the CR.
At the risk of creating flamebait, what are your thoughts on cutting 1/4-3/4 of a coil off the spring perch end of the front springs with a side grinder to reduce the length? I really only want it a 1/2" lower and the rear height is fine. Has anybody tried something like that?
No judgment here. In fact this sort of question is why I characterized the springs in terms of their parameters, rather than just trying to brute-force measure them.
Nominally, cutting springs to lower ride height can be self-defeating: if you assume N coils, the spring might indeed be one-Nth shorter (lower), but the spring rate also goes up by one-Nth, pushing the car back up!
However, the S2000's OE springs are shaped in such a way that the bottom coil is very tight, so that it "sits down" completely in the seat when installed on the car. Therefore it's always "inactive" -- it doesn't contribute to spring rate. Conversely, the next-to-bottom coil rises sharply from there, ensuring that it remains active under almost all dynamic conditions. You can see what I mean here -- notice the tiny gap above the bottom coil, and the huge gap above the next coil:
So if you cut some fraction off the bottom coil, it *should* be the case that a much smaller fraction of the next-to-bottom coil becomes inactive; and therefore the spring rate shouldn't increase enough to lift the car back up. Note, however, that this will make the spring more progressive: as it compresses, more and more of the "new" bottom coil will seat itself, raising the spring rate**.
Anyway, I'd start by taking off 1/4 coil at a time. With your '05 front shock, you should only be a fraction of an inch higher than stock in front, since the '05 fronts are only a little softer than the '01 rears. So hopefully it'll only take 1/4 or 1/2 coil to get you where you want.
Let us know what you find.
**By my calculations, if you cut 1/4 coil from the '00-'01 rear, the progressive spring rate will max out at 309 lb/in. For 1/2 coil, theoretically it'd max out at 329 lb/in, but you'd probably be on the bump stops before you got there.
Got an interesting question from a reader about my sources for the swaybar dimensions (i.e. bar diameter and wall thickness): were the values in my paper indeed published by Honda? The answer is yes, and I'm happy to share the sources.
For 2002-2008, the numbers are from Honda press releases (cited in the paper, but without hyperlinks); you can currently find them archived at the links below. For ease of reference, I've added screenshots of the relevant tables below each link.
For 2000-2001, I can't find an archived press release with the data, and my memory is hazy about whether that data was ever published publicly. But I do remember that the values were sometimes shown in Honda's electronic parts catalog (EPC). I checked online first, but no luck. So I dug up my archived copy of the original U.S. catalog from 2001, and there they were! For posterity, here are the relevant snapshots:
It turns out the person who contacted me was, in fact, specifically interested in the '00-'01 vs '02-'03 rear bars. As you can see, Honda's data indicates that the '00-'01 bar is 27.2mm diam x 5.3mm thick, while the '02-'03 bar is 27.2mm diam x 4.5mm thick. However, this person recently acquired one of each, and found that the two bars had identical weights. Since the diameters are the same, it seemed possible that the thicknesses are as well. Naturally I suggested sacrificing the two bars by sawing them in half and measuring! Sadly (for me), that's not an option for them at the moment. So if anyone with access to both bars would like to "take one for the team," I'd love to hear from you!
In fact this sort of question is why I characterized the springs in terms of their parameters, rather than just trying to brute-force measure them.
Sadly (for me), that's not an option for them at the moment. So if anyone with access to both bars would like to "take one for the team," I'd love to hear from you!
