Coilovers II
02-18-2001, 07:30 PM
#1
More suspension ramblings.. the last thread (http://www.s2000online.com/forums/sh...?threadid=7273) was getting long so I just continued in a new one.
OK, I have done some homework and gone full circle in my thinking, reaching some conclusions that you guys can shoot holes in..
..but also have a bit more understanding about what I am seeking. (I now understand digressive damping and even see how you can use digressive or linear damping for compression or rebound in any combination, and even control low speed and high speed damping at different rates).
From everything I
OK, I have done some homework and gone full circle in my thinking, reaching some conclusions that you guys can shoot holes in..
..but also have a bit more understanding about what I am seeking. (I now understand digressive damping and even see how you can use digressive or linear damping for compression or rebound in any combination, and even control low speed and high speed damping at different rates).
From everything I
02-18-2001, 09:44 PM
#2
Registered User
Ride is a function of a lot of things, but impact harshness is largely a function of spring rate. Stiff, linear rate sprigns just don't move much over bumps, and that means the car body does - shocks can have some effect here, but its really mostly springs. What the car does after the bump is contacted is where shocks really come into play. Insufficient compression damping may throw the wheel up, while insufficient rebound damping can cause "bounciness".
On the Mugen stuff, I'm not aware of updates, but if the have made them, at least they're making improvemnets instead of sticking with an inferior solution. Perhaps the original setup was too loose for the typical Mugen customer (doesn't mean it wasn't a fast setup). That's why you never want to be the guinea pig.
UL
On the Mugen stuff, I'm not aware of updates, but if the have made them, at least they're making improvemnets instead of sticking with an inferior solution. Perhaps the original setup was too loose for the typical Mugen customer (doesn't mean it wasn't a fast setup). That's why you never want to be the guinea pig.
UL
02-18-2001, 11:31 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys-
Yeah, UL has it fairly correct. Also, you want to avoid suspension damping packing- that is, when the rebound is set to higher damping forces than compression.
In addition, when a shock has infinite tunablity, you can completely lock out shock movement by setting the damping of both compression and rebound to fully closed (full stiff, in layman's terms). Then all you have is the emergency shimstack blowoff. So, under conditions that don't blow the shimstack the suspension will have little, if not any, travel, but if it has a big enough hit it can blow the stack, bottom out, and stop! Of course, this is all relative to normal shock movement...
cdelena-
Most cars that I know of have progressive shock valving. I only used the SLK as an illustration of the point I was making since I know they use digressive shock tuning (documented in magazines and such).
I'm pretty sure the Mugen N-0 kit is progressive. I'm also pretty sure they changed it because it was probably too aggressive for most people's skills. You don't want digressive shocks in real life- emergency situations require more control, not less...
Yeah, UL has it fairly correct. Also, you want to avoid suspension damping packing- that is, when the rebound is set to higher damping forces than compression.
In addition, when a shock has infinite tunablity, you can completely lock out shock movement by setting the damping of both compression and rebound to fully closed (full stiff, in layman's terms). Then all you have is the emergency shimstack blowoff. So, under conditions that don't blow the shimstack the suspension will have little, if not any, travel, but if it has a big enough hit it can blow the stack, bottom out, and stop! Of course, this is all relative to normal shock movement...
cdelena-
Most cars that I know of have progressive shock valving. I only used the SLK as an illustration of the point I was making since I know they use digressive shock tuning (documented in magazines and such).
I'm pretty sure the Mugen N-0 kit is progressive. I'm also pretty sure they changed it because it was probably too aggressive for most people's skills. You don't want digressive shocks in real life- emergency situations require more control, not less...
02-20-2001, 06:32 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello All-
After some conversation with the engineers at Mugen concerning the specs for the N-0 suspension kit. We have come to the conclusion that there are errors on both our website and the Japanese Mugen website.
The correct specifications are as follows:
Rebound/Compression kgf (0.1 m/s)
Front
Hard
1 227/89
2 210/86
3 157/77
4 105/65
5 79/58
Soft
Rear
Hard
1 279/104
2 239/100
3 179/85
4 119/73
5 86/52
Soft
Spring Rates
Front 7.0 kg/mm stock 3.9 kg/mm
Rear 11.0 kg/mm stock 5.2 kg/mm
These specifications have not changed since the introduction of this kit. We apologize for any confusion our errors may have caused you.
As always, feel free to contact us at any time if you have questions.
Cheers!
Scott
After some conversation with the engineers at Mugen concerning the specs for the N-0 suspension kit. We have come to the conclusion that there are errors on both our website and the Japanese Mugen website.
The correct specifications are as follows:
Rebound/Compression kgf (0.1 m/s)
Front
Hard
1 227/89
2 210/86
3 157/77
4 105/65
5 79/58
Soft
Rear
Hard
1 279/104
2 239/100
3 179/85
4 119/73
5 86/52
Soft
Spring Rates
Front 7.0 kg/mm stock 3.9 kg/mm
Rear 11.0 kg/mm stock 5.2 kg/mm
These specifications have not changed since the introduction of this kit. We apologize for any confusion our errors may have caused you.
As always, feel free to contact us at any time if you have questions.
Cheers!
Scott
Trending Topics
02-20-2001, 07:01 AM
#8
Scott, thanks for clearing that up for us. Between the language difference and our relative ignorance on the subject, an error in the documentation led to rapid confusion.
