S2000 STR prep resource
01-14-2010, 01:32 PM
#1001
I ran Dunlops unshaved 225 front and 255 rear for the second half of last season on stock suspension... no issues whatsoever... very eaven tread wear at that, even with my Autox oriented tirewear be damned alignment.
01-14-2010, 01:53 PM
#1003
Wait a sec, I don't fully understand your question. The GC units are functionally identical to stock. The damper is controlled by the rubber bushings and the spring is essentially compressed against the chassis.
I would expect the bushings would do just as fine as they do when stock.
I would expect the bushings would do just as fine as they do when stock.
01-14-2010, 02:10 PM
#1004
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are really concerned about misalignment/coil bind/unequal load distribution, you can get a set of hydraulic spring perches. I researched this a while back when I was ordering shocks for my civic, and found that it wasn't worth the money, and additional maintenance. (you need to keep them clean and lubed, at least once a season)
You should be able to get rid of most of the issue with a set of torrington bearings on the perch. I did this for my shocks on the civic, but I have no clue if it made a difference. I didn't worry about it for the S2000 shocks.
The Science of Speed pillowball mounts arrived today for our car.
You should be able to get rid of most of the issue with a set of torrington bearings on the perch. I did this for my shocks on the civic, but I have no clue if it made a difference. I didn't worry about it for the S2000 shocks.
The Science of Speed pillowball mounts arrived today for our car.
01-14-2010, 02:28 PM
#1005
Originally Posted by glagola1,Jan 14 2010, 02:23 PM
You read all those posts a little ways back up this thread that discuss this very thing right? Bottom line: nobody knows the difference between coaxial spring compression vs. misaligned compressed as illustrated above because the user felt difference will be minimal. It would be theoretically ideal to have a separate upper spring perch that is not part of the top hat but I don't think it's gonna cost anyone any time on course.
I am questioning the necessity/utility of the upper spring perches with OE and GC 'top hats'. If the lower shock bushing is highly compressed, the functionality/utility of the 'top hat' may be compromised.
Originally Posted by PilotSH,Jan 14 2010, 02:44 PM
I think your load path when using an upper perch (your left side of the diagram) is exaggerated. For the purposes we're talking about, the load path goes up where the upper mount comes in contact with the chassis of the car, which is a lot closer than you depicted.
Anyway, in terms of wear/destruction of the bottom rubber bushing, both the stock setup and the Koni setup have rubber/poly bushings btwn the spring and the seat, and they don't get destroyed, so I think the bottom bushing will be OK. It looks pretty beefy to me. Even when that bushing gets compressed, I don't see how it could bind or distort enuf to cause any noticeable problems. I think the assymetrical loading of the spring and stress it puts on the shaft seals is a bigger concern.
my 2 cents.
James Yom
Anyway, in terms of wear/destruction of the bottom rubber bushing, both the stock setup and the Koni setup have rubber/poly bushings btwn the spring and the seat, and they don't get destroyed, so I think the bottom bushing will be OK. It looks pretty beefy to me. Even when that bushing gets compressed, I don't see how it could bind or distort enuf to cause any noticeable problems. I think the assymetrical loading of the spring and stress it puts on the shaft seals is a bigger concern.
my 2 cents.
James Yom
I pressures applied to the rubber components are also dramatically different. With the spring perch the load is carried through the relatively small lower 'top hat' bushing, whereas the spring rubber carries the load over the surface area of the spring (much larger).
With the lower 'top hat' bushing carrying a much larger load, it could be fully bound and ineffective at allowing the spring/shock to pivot through the 'top hat'. Consequently, the bending loads applied shock could be increased rather than decreased.
Originally Posted by BrianGT,Jan 14 2010, 03:10 PM
If you are really concerned about misalignment/coil bind/unequal load distribution, you can get a set of hydraulic spring perches. I researched this a while back when I was ordering shocks for my civic, and found that it wasn't worth the money, and additional maintenance. (you need to keep them clean and lubed, at least once a season)
Although I question the need for any mechanism to minimize unequal spring loads; the stock class guys seem to get by OK with a larger range of motion (softer springs) and greater angle changes (at least I think they do).
01-14-2010, 02:32 PM
#1006
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neurotic,Jan 14 2010, 06:28 PM
Those seem like another good, albeit expensive option: http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productse...sp?Product=1870
But.. the Torrington bearings should fix most of the issue for a whole lot less $.
01-14-2010, 02:36 PM
#1007
Originally Posted by glagola1,Jan 14 2010, 02:53 PM
Wait a sec, I don't fully understand your question. The GC units are functionally identical to stock. The damper is controlled by the rubber bushings and the spring is essentially compressed against the chassis.
I would expect the bushings would do just as fine as they do when stock.
I would expect the bushings would do just as fine as they do when stock.
With the Koni upper spring perches, both the spring and shock loads transfer to the 'top hat' through the lower shock mount bushing. At least that is how I understand they work.
Does anyone have a picture of an assembly with the OE 'top hat' and Koni spring perch?
01-14-2010, 02:38 PM
#1008
Originally Posted by BrianGT,Jan 14 2010, 03:32 PM
But.. the Torrington bearings should fix most of the issue for a whole lot less $.
01-14-2010, 02:49 PM
#1009
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neurotic,Jan 14 2010, 06:38 PM
Don't the torrington bearings solely allow one end of the spring to rotate around the shock? This would minimize some unequal loading, but not account for potential non-parallel surfaces between the lower and upper spring perches.
Nevertheless, the Moton shocks have beefy shafts and pretty nice perches. Combined with the SoS top mounts, they should work fine.
-Brian
01-14-2010, 03:12 PM
#1010
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Honda HQ
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neurotic,Jan 14 2010, 05:28 PM
No
The load path may look weird, but it is not really exaggerated. With the upper spring perch the spring's load transfers from to the perch, to the washer, to the lower shock mount bushing, to the 'top hat', to the chassis. Without the upper perch, the spring's load transfers to the spring rubber, to the 'top hat', to the chassis. Thus, the loads through the lower shock mount bushing are dramatically different with and without the upper spring perch; the bushings now carries the car's unsprung load.
I pressures applied to the rubber components are also dramatically different. With the spring perch the load is carried through the relatively small lower 'top hat' bushing, whereas the spring rubber carries the load over the surface area of the spring (much larger).
With the lower 'top hat' bushing carrying a much larger load, it could be fully bound and ineffective at allowing the spring/shock to pivot through the 'top hat'. Consequently, the bending loads applied shock could be increased rather than decreased.
Those seem like another good, albeit expensive option: http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productse...sp?Product=1870
Although I question the need for any mechanism to minimize unequal spring loads; the stock class guys seem to get by OK with a larger range of motion (softer springs) and greater angle changes (at least I think they do).
The load path may look weird, but it is not really exaggerated. With the upper spring perch the spring's load transfers from to the perch, to the washer, to the lower shock mount bushing, to the 'top hat', to the chassis. Without the upper perch, the spring's load transfers to the spring rubber, to the 'top hat', to the chassis. Thus, the loads through the lower shock mount bushing are dramatically different with and without the upper spring perch; the bushings now carries the car's unsprung load.
I pressures applied to the rubber components are also dramatically different. With the spring perch the load is carried through the relatively small lower 'top hat' bushing, whereas the spring rubber carries the load over the surface area of the spring (much larger).
With the lower 'top hat' bushing carrying a much larger load, it could be fully bound and ineffective at allowing the spring/shock to pivot through the 'top hat'. Consequently, the bending loads applied shock could be increased rather than decreased.
Those seem like another good, albeit expensive option: http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productse...sp?Product=1870
Although I question the need for any mechanism to minimize unequal spring loads; the stock class guys seem to get by OK with a larger range of motion (softer springs) and greater angle changes (at least I think they do).
As for the stock guys, they don't have the choice to run upper spring perches, but we do, so why not? I'm more worried about how fast the seals will wear on my shocks, as the valving makes the internal pressures much higher than OEM. Dealing with blown shock is a PITA, esp becuase of the downtime required.
James Yom