I think you forgot the block height of the bump stop being in a space that would normally be unused.

If you were running without bump stops the advantage would go to stock top hats.

 

My buddy messaged me to say my part came in that I wanted for testing. Now I just need to get one of my tops milled down so I can do some testing. I'm going to disconnect the sway bar and then install the shock without any springs and test the difference to see if I really got more out of my setup or if the OEM tops really were my best option.

 

My installer is putting in my setup today, he also planned to use that method to check the travel, he said the GC tops definitely had more travel.

How does this method take into account static ride height though, which is the factor limiting travel?

He also said he thought the front stops didn't look like they needed trimming either at full length.

 

The math is simple.

If you are using bumpstops with stock mounts, these relocate the bumpstops up, giving you a little bit more travel.
If you are not using bumpstops with stock mounts, and you bottom out internally, you gain useable travel by removing that condition. However, you could bottom out against the mount flange.

 

Is it the negative rake/rear to front height ratio that adds stability, or height of the rear independent of the front?

My rear will be travel limited before the front, probably by 12.5-13". Would you recommend running a higher front than rear height just to keep a negative rake?

 

This makes sense and is what I was trying get at but u said it better. These gc too hats are really only applicable if ur shocks run the risk of bottoming out internally before the body contacts the top hat and or upper spring perch. I think they were a design band aid for Honda's that were trying to on koni yellows in all their stock dimensioned glory.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

You guys are forgetting about the block height of the bump stop, that's the other advantage and is why they're able to increase travel. For Koni's it's that and the fact that the shaft is mounted higher so they don't bottom internally like what was said above.

 

I'm going to raise the BS flag here. For my situation, milling the lower boss made them usable. Th material for the boss is quite thin and really only functional as a spring ID locator. It's not meant to take any load, nor is it in the load path. So, removing the material does not hurt the design at all. If they're concerned about the integrity of these top mounts, I'll report back when mine blow through the chassis. The design is similar to their polyurethane bushing version, which I have seen successfully used on track cars and auto-x cars (yes, S2000s specifically).

 

It's a CYA thing

 

Just to clarify, as I said, I don't understand this stuff, I was just quoting what GC told me.
FWIW, they also did not recommend running this honda race mount in the S2K due to clearance issues. And, they also sent me a 3/4" spacer by accident instead of the 1" one. Since the 1" one in the lower config causes difficulty adjusting rebound/hits fuel pipe, going to see if 3/4" works, and still has extra 1/4" travel over the 1/2" one in the lower position. They also didn't recommend doing this, wasn't made for these mounts they said.

nmrado, thinking about what they said, if you milled the lower boss, and trim the bumpstop equivalently, there is more room for the shock body to travel before hitting the top mount, so that would also add more travel, right?

Also, how do you guys measure the travel when you say keep at least 1.5-2". My installer measured with the shock only attached, and there was 3.5" before the bump stop bottomed out. Why is there so much, and how does ride height factor into this test, since its the factor that limits travel?