Tender Springs / bumpy tracks (Sebring) / suspension upgrades etc...
02-03-2012, 06:01 PM
#91
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I keep going on about it however the real 'magic' for me about this new setup is the absence of a 'jump' feeling from 46N/mm to 88N/mm...that just makes me smile on each WOT blast...the smooth seamless overlap on compression and rebound is really just stunning...!
02-04-2012, 01:38 AM
#92
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a quick note - in the picture below where you have a joint between tender and main spring - take a piece of electrical tape and wrap it around there to bond 2 springs with a spacer together - it will eliminate springs rattle on bumpy roads down to minimum. it took me quite some time to figure this out, actually, as i could not understand where that rattle was coming from.
as of progressive rate tenders - my mechanic told me it is bad for handling, and whole/only point to have tenders in the setup is to reduce rattles a bit on the street, 'normal' race cars he builds do not have any tenders at all, just linear main springs. in his opinion rate of tenders has to be much less then weight of the corner so it would be 100% collapsed all the time, so he uses 150# tenders on all corners.
as of progressive rate tenders - my mechanic told me it is bad for handling, and whole/only point to have tenders in the setup is to reduce rattles a bit on the street, 'normal' race cars he builds do not have any tenders at all, just linear main springs. in his opinion rate of tenders has to be much less then weight of the corner so it would be 100% collapsed all the time, so he uses 150# tenders on all corners.
Your mechanic sounds like mine - mine echoed exactly the same points before he fitted all the parts...tbh, I was a touch worried during the two weeks he claimed the car was not ready...what I know now is that he was looking at ways to dismiss/discredit the solution and he failed miserably...it is an interesting thing to watch a mechanic swallow his huge pride...!
His last line of defence thus far has been..."let us see how it will perform on the track"...frankly, I have already spent the 'betting winnings'...am that sure of a win...LOL!
Anyway, we will now apply same principle to the fronts once we complete a few track sessions...
02-04-2012, 03:12 AM
#93
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting observations from my car fitment;
1) The new rear average rate is 52N/mm compared to the old Spring + GE13 combo of 51N/mm.
2) The new rear tender spring load of 865Ibs before going in to block is 25% higher than the corner weight of 691Ibs.
3) On the old spring setup - thus 37N/mm & 51N/mm - the fronts are 73% lesser compared to the rears.
4) IF we take point #3 above and looked at the difference using the original Eibach rate thus minus the GE13 on the rear so we are comparing 37N/mm & 44N/mm, then the fronts are 84% lesser compared to the rears.
5) IF we take the Audi published axle load figures - 1951Ibs rears & 2292Ibs fronts - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the rears are 85% lesser compared to the fronts.
6) IF we take my actual axle weights of 2065Ibs front & 1382Ibs rear - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the rears are 67% lesser compared to the fronts.
7) On a last observation, IF we take my actual corner weights of 1675Ibs passenger side front & rear then the 1772Ibs for the driver side front & rear - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the passenger side is 94.5% lesser compared to the driver side.
All above figures gives all the info required to make reasonable assumptions as to how the car handles and where to improve things...I have always supported getting to this level of details to get a better understanding rather than blindingly fitting things just because...
Taking the approach of understanding what is in situ before making ‘THAT’ change means am getting more ‘HITS’ than ‘MISS’...!!!
1) The new rear average rate is 52N/mm compared to the old Spring + GE13 combo of 51N/mm.
2) The new rear tender spring load of 865Ibs before going in to block is 25% higher than the corner weight of 691Ibs.
3) On the old spring setup - thus 37N/mm & 51N/mm - the fronts are 73% lesser compared to the rears.
4) IF we take point #3 above and looked at the difference using the original Eibach rate thus minus the GE13 on the rear so we are comparing 37N/mm & 44N/mm, then the fronts are 84% lesser compared to the rears.
5) IF we take the Audi published axle load figures - 1951Ibs rears & 2292Ibs fronts - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the rears are 85% lesser compared to the fronts.
6) IF we take my actual axle weights of 2065Ibs front & 1382Ibs rear - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the rears are 67% lesser compared to the fronts.
7) On a last observation, IF we take my actual corner weights of 1675Ibs passenger side front & rear then the 1772Ibs for the driver side front & rear - and compare as in #3 & #4 above then the passenger side is 94.5% lesser compared to the driver side.
All above figures gives all the info required to make reasonable assumptions as to how the car handles and where to improve things...I have always supported getting to this level of details to get a better understanding rather than blindingly fitting things just because...
Taking the approach of understanding what is in situ before making ‘THAT’ change means am getting more ‘HITS’ than ‘MISS’...!!!
Last edited by 996CAB; 02-11-2012 at 09:19 AM.
02-04-2012, 08:11 AM
#94
Drifting
Thread Starter
In the above you have used kg when you ment #s in most situations.
For most people casually reading this, the key is to know your exact Sprung Corner weights with driver - that is the key. Everything depends on this. From this, you choose spring combos, using the math for multiple springs that I highlighted in the earlier post, and that's it.
The car rides around on the lower rate springs
- you can see this perfectly in one of William's pictures
- the picture of the green spring 'almost' fully compressed(about 200#s left)
- add 200#s of load and you get more spring
Paul
For most people casually reading this, the key is to know your exact Sprung Corner weights with driver - that is the key. Everything depends on this. From this, you choose spring combos, using the math for multiple springs that I highlighted in the earlier post, and that's it.
The car rides around on the lower rate springs
- you can see this perfectly in one of William's pictures
- the picture of the green spring 'almost' fully compressed(about 200#s left)
- add 200#s of load and you get more spring
Paul
02-04-2012, 04:51 PM
#96
Rennlist Member
It would very interesting to see if you guys tried to compare lap times with linear #1xx tenders and those progressive tenders, imho it is the only way to find out what gives more grip in reality.
02-05-2012, 03:22 AM
#97
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspensions in track cars are rather conservative business, so I am not surprised mechanics who work on cup cars and custom race cars have their opinion.
It would very interesting to see if you guys tried to compare lap times with linear #1xx tenders and those progressive tenders, imho it is the only way to find out what gives more grip in reality.
It would very interesting to see if you guys tried to compare lap times with linear #1xx tenders and those progressive tenders, imho it is the only way to find out what gives more grip in reality.
I will be going back there on 31st March - should be interesting to note how I get on...
03-05-2012, 12:43 PM
#99
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well,
I managed to get on track - Brands Hatch - to test the triple rated springs on track and it was a revelation...car is so much more stable, compliant, corners FLAT and I can now play...vid below shows...apologise for the camera angle and quality however...
Suffice to say this has been an absolute success thx solely to Paul...what an eye opener...!
enjoy...Car is an Audi TT-RS with a 'few' mods...;
Also tested the ENDLESS RF-650 brake fluid...this is the real deal fellows...!
http://youtu.be/isRYzMFDSsk
I managed to get on track - Brands Hatch - to test the triple rated springs on track and it was a revelation...car is so much more stable, compliant, corners FLAT and I can now play...vid below shows...apologise for the camera angle and quality however...
Suffice to say this has been an absolute success thx solely to Paul...what an eye opener...!
enjoy...Car is an Audi TT-RS with a 'few' mods...;
Also tested the ENDLESS RF-650 brake fluid...this is the real deal fellows...!
http://youtu.be/isRYzMFDSsk
Last edited by 996CAB; 03-05-2012 at 01:21 PM.
04-04-2012, 02:32 PM
#100
Three Wheelin'
We have a lap time of 1:26 from a track in the UK - Castle Combe, see http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/castle_combe.html - and that time we could not improve upon...we tried all we could.
I will be going back there on 31st March - should be interesting to note how I get on...
I will be going back there on 31st March - should be interesting to note how I get on...
04-04-2012, 03:05 PM
#101
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as you ask here they are...;
First 2012 Trackday at Brands Hatch Indy Circuit post fitment - http://www.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=10549
Second 2012 Trackday at Bedford Autodrome post fitment...also includes footage - http://www.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=10798
The only thing we now think needs to be done is more negative camber on the front...and reduce the negative camber on the rears just to shift the balance more towards neutral. So we are on the home straight in terms of modding this car...has taken nearly 3-yrs to get here.
Next trackday will either be in Pril and am either going to Spa in Belgium (1,000 miles round trip) or local (50 miles round trip) at Goodwood. Will feedback also.
First 2012 Trackday at Brands Hatch Indy Circuit post fitment - http://www.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=10549
Second 2012 Trackday at Bedford Autodrome post fitment...also includes footage - http://www.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=10798
The only thing we now think needs to be done is more negative camber on the front...and reduce the negative camber on the rears just to shift the balance more towards neutral. So we are on the home straight in terms of modding this car...has taken nearly 3-yrs to get here.
Next trackday will either be in Pril and am either going to Spa in Belgium (1,000 miles round trip) or local (50 miles round trip) at Goodwood. Will feedback also.
04-20-2012, 09:58 AM
#102
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feedback post track and street testing...
Hi All,
I thought an update on the triple-rated springs system fitted and suggested by Paul at the beginning of this thread may be useful for others who may wish to consider going down the same route.
WHAT I HAVE DONE
S I M P L E S... I stacked two springs on top of each other to get to the required static ride height. The key advantage of doing so is that I can choose at which load the suspension firms up thus I can have a soft ride for normal street driving and firm ride for track use all from a press of a button.
WHY?
The spring system fitted is an extension of the theory expressed by Paul in this thread having followed his ‘re-valve’ thread with interest. We own different brands of cars, his being offcourse a RWD rear engine mounted GT3RS and mine being an AWD front engine mounted TT-RS.
However, what we have in common fitted to our cars is the semi-active suspension system…with the PASM on his GT3RS and Audi MagneRide on the TT-RS. Both of these systems function more or less in the same fashion to a point in so much as at a press of an internally mounted button the driver can select between soft settings for street or road use or firmer settings for track or spirited street driving.
It has been a while since I owned a PASM equipped Porsche thus I cannot re-call how effective/intrusive either PASM settings are however what I can tell you in regards to the Audi MagneRide semi-active system are as follows…;
STREET USE
Soft settings – perfect for cruising. It soaks up bumps very well with composure and keeps the car planted for relatively low speed spirited drive thus anything below 100KM/H is accomplished with a great degree of competence.
Firmer settings – A little harsh, though bearable, for street use unless the road surface is relatively smooth. Can ‘cope’ reasonably well for the odd spirited drive however understeer – nose ploys away from a corner – is apparent during 2nd/3rd gear cornering.
TRACK USE
Soft settings – Unless you plan to drive below 150KM/H on track, you will not enjoy the experience as the suspension wallows around bends. The steering also lacks any feel thus judging grip at corner entry and exit is a lottery exercise. The fronts lean too much during high speed cornering and the rears squat too much when at full throttle thus causing the front wheels to lift and loose traction…this in turn cause a lost of steering feel.
Firmer settings – Same as above however the speed that you can play on track increases to 200KM/h to maintain any control…above that and it is very much great in the straights however not planted in the corners.
To resolve the above handling issues I made the following changes in stages and in order as noted…;
1) ARBs – increased front from 22mm to 24mm and rears from 17.5mm to 22mm. Tried various settings and settled on soft fronts and hard rear settings. This helped reduce understeer a little.
2) Uprated Haldex controller to spread torque 50/50 amongst axle. This also helped reduce understeer a little.
3) Lowered sports springs – this lowered ride by 15mm front and 10mm rear.
4) Various GEO setup changes.
5) Uprated wheels from 18” to 19”. MagneRide performed better with 19” wheels on even though these were a few ponds heavier compared to the 18”s.
6) The above change also included BBK which added 2.3kg per corner on the fronts and increased front track by 10mm per corner fronts only. Contrary to what is widely reported about unsprung weight affecting performance, I found the car to be more nimble on street and track. My only educated guess here is that MagneRide would appear to be unaffected by the increased unsprung weight.
7) I then also increased rear track with spacers by 10mm per corner and found these caused rubbing on the arches. The increased track width had no effect on handling – positive or negative – so the 10mm spacers came off the rear axle.
The handling was still not right and being that I track the car 10x per annum in UK and Europe, I needed a solution. It was at this point that I stumbled upon Pauls thread on re-valving his GT3RS whilst researching on how to improve handling on a semi-active suspension system.
Pauls re-valve thread shaped my views however the Audi MagneRide dampers cannot be re-valved. Paul subsequent thread, this one here, was the ‘money thread’ so to speak…! It touched on a point I felt needed to be looked at and that was as follows…;
i) re-tune a semi-active damper system to handle low and high speed the compression and rebound.
What I know about the MagneRide system today is that the dampers are much more capable than it is given credit for. It is unfortunately let down by the springs shipped from factory. These are too focused on street comfort.
The Eibach Pro-kit aftermarket springs I had purchased subsequently were well suited to the front axle being that the damper is valved from factory at 40N/mm and the springs are rated at 38.95N/mm (marketed as 37N/mm springs by Eibach).
However, the rear springs from that kit is poorly matched to the rear damper thus too hard in the firmer settings and too soft in the soft settings. On track the rears squat too much thus causing the fronts to lean too much in a corners. This causes fronts to lose traction. Yeah, more camber up front helps a little however the issue really is the excessive squatting on the rears.
BENEFIT
The main benefit I have found with the triple-rated dual stacked spring system designed and now fitted to the car is that the car as a whole is more composed on streets or track as the semi-active dampers combined with the stacked springs are now doing what the suspension is designed to do best and that is to soak up bumps. That simple ability to soak up bumps helps stabilise the car during cornering or on a cambered road or track.
I have also firmed the front spring rate up thus I now have a more composed and firmed up suspension system as a result. The key point to note here is that stacking springs by carefull selection yields benefits specifically on a semi-active suspension system which is so impressive that it really changes the car in to an entirely sports focused yet comfort retained vehicle that is much more of a joy to jump in and have a go…Amen indeed…!
Paul, just in case I have forgotten …T H A N K YOU…for the tenth time and more to come...!!!
I thought an update on the triple-rated springs system fitted and suggested by Paul at the beginning of this thread may be useful for others who may wish to consider going down the same route.
WHAT I HAVE DONE
S I M P L E S... I stacked two springs on top of each other to get to the required static ride height. The key advantage of doing so is that I can choose at which load the suspension firms up thus I can have a soft ride for normal street driving and firm ride for track use all from a press of a button.
WHY?
The spring system fitted is an extension of the theory expressed by Paul in this thread having followed his ‘re-valve’ thread with interest. We own different brands of cars, his being offcourse a RWD rear engine mounted GT3RS and mine being an AWD front engine mounted TT-RS.
However, what we have in common fitted to our cars is the semi-active suspension system…with the PASM on his GT3RS and Audi MagneRide on the TT-RS. Both of these systems function more or less in the same fashion to a point in so much as at a press of an internally mounted button the driver can select between soft settings for street or road use or firmer settings for track or spirited street driving.
It has been a while since I owned a PASM equipped Porsche thus I cannot re-call how effective/intrusive either PASM settings are however what I can tell you in regards to the Audi MagneRide semi-active system are as follows…;
STREET USE
Soft settings – perfect for cruising. It soaks up bumps very well with composure and keeps the car planted for relatively low speed spirited drive thus anything below 100KM/H is accomplished with a great degree of competence.
Firmer settings – A little harsh, though bearable, for street use unless the road surface is relatively smooth. Can ‘cope’ reasonably well for the odd spirited drive however understeer – nose ploys away from a corner – is apparent during 2nd/3rd gear cornering.
TRACK USE
Soft settings – Unless you plan to drive below 150KM/H on track, you will not enjoy the experience as the suspension wallows around bends. The steering also lacks any feel thus judging grip at corner entry and exit is a lottery exercise. The fronts lean too much during high speed cornering and the rears squat too much when at full throttle thus causing the front wheels to lift and loose traction…this in turn cause a lost of steering feel.
Firmer settings – Same as above however the speed that you can play on track increases to 200KM/h to maintain any control…above that and it is very much great in the straights however not planted in the corners.
To resolve the above handling issues I made the following changes in stages and in order as noted…;
1) ARBs – increased front from 22mm to 24mm and rears from 17.5mm to 22mm. Tried various settings and settled on soft fronts and hard rear settings. This helped reduce understeer a little.
2) Uprated Haldex controller to spread torque 50/50 amongst axle. This also helped reduce understeer a little.
3) Lowered sports springs – this lowered ride by 15mm front and 10mm rear.
4) Various GEO setup changes.
5) Uprated wheels from 18” to 19”. MagneRide performed better with 19” wheels on even though these were a few ponds heavier compared to the 18”s.
6) The above change also included BBK which added 2.3kg per corner on the fronts and increased front track by 10mm per corner fronts only. Contrary to what is widely reported about unsprung weight affecting performance, I found the car to be more nimble on street and track. My only educated guess here is that MagneRide would appear to be unaffected by the increased unsprung weight.
7) I then also increased rear track with spacers by 10mm per corner and found these caused rubbing on the arches. The increased track width had no effect on handling – positive or negative – so the 10mm spacers came off the rear axle.
The handling was still not right and being that I track the car 10x per annum in UK and Europe, I needed a solution. It was at this point that I stumbled upon Pauls thread on re-valving his GT3RS whilst researching on how to improve handling on a semi-active suspension system.
Pauls re-valve thread shaped my views however the Audi MagneRide dampers cannot be re-valved. Paul subsequent thread, this one here, was the ‘money thread’ so to speak…! It touched on a point I felt needed to be looked at and that was as follows…;
i) re-tune a semi-active damper system to handle low and high speed the compression and rebound.
What I know about the MagneRide system today is that the dampers are much more capable than it is given credit for. It is unfortunately let down by the springs shipped from factory. These are too focused on street comfort.
The Eibach Pro-kit aftermarket springs I had purchased subsequently were well suited to the front axle being that the damper is valved from factory at 40N/mm and the springs are rated at 38.95N/mm (marketed as 37N/mm springs by Eibach).
However, the rear springs from that kit is poorly matched to the rear damper thus too hard in the firmer settings and too soft in the soft settings. On track the rears squat too much thus causing the fronts to lean too much in a corners. This causes fronts to lose traction. Yeah, more camber up front helps a little however the issue really is the excessive squatting on the rears.
BENEFIT
The main benefit I have found with the triple-rated dual stacked spring system designed and now fitted to the car is that the car as a whole is more composed on streets or track as the semi-active dampers combined with the stacked springs are now doing what the suspension is designed to do best and that is to soak up bumps. That simple ability to soak up bumps helps stabilise the car during cornering or on a cambered road or track.
I have also firmed the front spring rate up thus I now have a more composed and firmed up suspension system as a result. The key point to note here is that stacking springs by carefull selection yields benefits specifically on a semi-active suspension system which is so impressive that it really changes the car in to an entirely sports focused yet comfort retained vehicle that is much more of a joy to jump in and have a go…Amen indeed…!
Paul, just in case I have forgotten …T H A N K YOU…for the tenth time and more to come...!!!
Last edited by 996CAB; 04-20-2012 at 04:47 PM.
07-03-2012, 12:49 AM
#103
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire & London, UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
V1 of the spring system was a resounding success however I felt I could improve upon it and the rationale is here - see http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewt...23637#p2323637. Also includes post on V2 however I will post V2 notes ONLY here...see below.
Well,
V2 has been done and I was right. The 600/1300Ibs progressive tender spring was the missing magic component. The following are the immediate traits post making the change today...;
1) Car is more stable under hard acceleration or hard braking.
2) Ride comfort is improved on MagneRide hard or softer settings.
3) Car does not get unsettled over rough tarmac like before.
4) Cornering turn-in is sharper as the car just goes in to bends with slight turn of the steering wheel exhibiting better composure and with the suspension settling down quicker in the cornering phase compared to before. Very noticeable improvement indeed.
5) Car feels more planted compared to before.
I have been testing the car for the past 3 hours and am very happy with this change. To re-cap, we did the following...;
1) Swapped out the 250/550Ibs progressive tender spring for a 600/1300Ibs progressive tender spring .
2) K1 went from 22N/mm to 39N/mm spring rate and now blocks at 653Ibs.
3) K2 went from 46N/mm to 63N/mm spring rate and now operates from 654Ibs to 1513Ibs load.
4) K3 is same spring rate as before of 88N/mm and blocks at 1810Ibs.
5) With the change, I have now increased k2 > k3 crossover load from 119Ibs to 767Ibs. This is the key to the improved ride comfort.
See post #2 at http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewt...23637#p2323637 for V2 pix of new spring settled ride height attached.
I have a time trials trackday booked on the 14th July where I will be looking to improve on my 1:32 lap time set recently with the old setup.
In short, I see no reason whatsoever to replace MagneRide with a C/O kit unless you are in to serious track days - 50 plus per annum - even then, you may not need to take MagneRide off.
As previously stated...MagneRide is a very capable damper which is let down by the poorly matched OEM springs and the aftermarket lowering springs currently offered are all also a compromise between comfort and handling. What I have gives me better than OEM comfort and C/O type handling all from a touch of a button.
Super fantastic.
If you doubt the above claims or wish to replicate what I have done then give Jim a call at JKM - see http://www.jkm.org.uk +44 (0)23 9263 9933.
V1 of the spring system was a resounding success however I felt I could improve upon it and the rationale is here - see http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewt...23637#p2323637. Also includes post on V2 however I will post V2 notes ONLY here...see below.
Well,
V2 has been done and I was right. The 600/1300Ibs progressive tender spring was the missing magic component. The following are the immediate traits post making the change today...;
1) Car is more stable under hard acceleration or hard braking.
2) Ride comfort is improved on MagneRide hard or softer settings.
3) Car does not get unsettled over rough tarmac like before.
4) Cornering turn-in is sharper as the car just goes in to bends with slight turn of the steering wheel exhibiting better composure and with the suspension settling down quicker in the cornering phase compared to before. Very noticeable improvement indeed.
5) Car feels more planted compared to before.
I have been testing the car for the past 3 hours and am very happy with this change. To re-cap, we did the following...;
1) Swapped out the 250/550Ibs progressive tender spring for a 600/1300Ibs progressive tender spring .
2) K1 went from 22N/mm to 39N/mm spring rate and now blocks at 653Ibs.
3) K2 went from 46N/mm to 63N/mm spring rate and now operates from 654Ibs to 1513Ibs load.
4) K3 is same spring rate as before of 88N/mm and blocks at 1810Ibs.
5) With the change, I have now increased k2 > k3 crossover load from 119Ibs to 767Ibs. This is the key to the improved ride comfort.
See post #2 at http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewt...23637#p2323637 for V2 pix of new spring settled ride height attached.
I have a time trials trackday booked on the 14th July where I will be looking to improve on my 1:32 lap time set recently with the old setup.
In short, I see no reason whatsoever to replace MagneRide with a C/O kit unless you are in to serious track days - 50 plus per annum - even then, you may not need to take MagneRide off.
As previously stated...MagneRide is a very capable damper which is let down by the poorly matched OEM springs and the aftermarket lowering springs currently offered are all also a compromise between comfort and handling. What I have gives me better than OEM comfort and C/O type handling all from a touch of a button.
Super fantastic.
If you doubt the above claims or wish to replicate what I have done then give Jim a call at JKM - see http://www.jkm.org.uk +44 (0)23 9263 9933.
09-20-2012, 04:51 PM
#104
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bringing this back from the dead... I finally have the spring info taken off the actual Ohlins springs in question. I'll cross post this to my own build thread.
rear 05173-07/7/80 helper spring
rear 01096-93/230 L2110 main spring
front 05173-12/7.5/60 helper spring
front 25039-12/120/75 L2010 main spring
rear 05173-07/7/80 helper spring
rear 01096-93/230 L2110 main spring
front 05173-12/7.5/60 helper spring
front 25039-12/120/75 L2010 main spring