I FINALLY made it to TWS [plus video]
01-28-2009, 08:18 PM
#212
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-28-2009, 08:21 PM
#213
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said I knew what the ideal settings were for your car, but if you look at the curves for those shocks, as well as most single adjustable "off the shelf" shocks in a similar price range, they are similar... They tend to only adjust rebound settings, with minimal compression change. Effectively, you're running maximum rebound setting in the rear, and little to know rebound in the front, which can lead to some "other side of the curve" handling characteristics. Having said that, have you tried more of a traditional setting front and rear? I would "guess" with quite a bit of certainty that you are outside the window of those shock's capability when running full stiff and full soft.
G.
01-28-2009, 09:01 PM
#215
Rennlist Member
Jezus!!! There's nothing left to do but CAGE MATCH!!! Get all of you into a cage and it's last man standing. Then we can all get some rest....
01-29-2009, 01:43 AM
#217
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
If you convert the adjustment range to 1 - 10 instead of 0 -9 just to simplify the math, my average front setting is (6+5+4)/3 = 5. 5 is the midpoint of the 1 - 10 range.
Mine would be any combination where the front is set equal to, or softer than the rear (i.e. a softer rear would be nontraditional). By that definition, the number of traditional settings to try are half of the total possible settings.
Of those left, I eliminated full or nearly full soft (8 and 9) in both the front and the rear due to the fact that the car is lowered to ROW height. And then I took that a step further in the front due to the fact that a C4 has more of its weight in the front compared to a C2, (eliminating 7,8 and 9).
From there, the number of settings to experiment with is fairly small.
5/5, 6/5
4/4, 5/4, 6/4
3/3, 4/3, 5/3, 6/3
2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6
0/0, 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, 0/4, 0/5, 0/6.
That's it. Have I tried them all? Of course not. Have I tried the extremes to get a benchmark? Of course I have. And probably 7 - 10 of the others until I triangulated on what felt best. 0/3 for TWS.
So what is so untraditional about 0/3?
Now if you were to say that 0/3 is also outside the window of those shock's capability, I would certainly like to know on what basis you would say that. (I would think that Bilstein may be interested in your answer too).
01-29-2009, 02:03 AM
#219
On a scale of 0 to 9, how does "(5 and 4) and a notch stiffer for TWS" translate into little to no rebound in the front? (A notch stiffer would be a 3).
If you convert the adjustment range to 1 - 10 instead of 0 -9 just to simplify the math, my average front setting is (6+5+4)/3 = 5. 5 is the midpoint of the 1 - 10 range.
What's your definition of traditional?
Mine would be any combination where the front is set equal to, or softer than the rear (i.e. a softer rear would be nontraditional). By that definition, the number of traditional settings to try are half of the total possible settings.
Of those left, I eliminated full or nearly full soft (8 and 9) in both the front and the rear due to the fact that the car is lowered to ROW height. And then I took that a step further in the front due to the fact that a C4 has more of its weight in the front compared to a C2, (eliminating 7,8 and 9).
From there, the number of settings to experiment with is fairly small.
5/5, 6/5
4/4, 5/4, 6/4
3/3, 4/3, 5/3, 6/3
2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6
0/0, 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, 0/4, 0/5, 0/6.
That's it. Have I tried them all? Of course not. Have I tried the extremes to get a benchmark? Of course I have. And probably 7 - 10 of the others until I triangulated on what felt best. 0/3 for TWS.
So what is so untraditional about 0/3?
I don't know what you mean by "guessing" with "quite a bit of certainty". Is that like "definitely a probability"? But seriously, you started with a false assumption (full stiff and full soft).
Now if you were to say that 0/3 is also outside the window of those shock's capability, I would certainly like to know on what basis you would say that. (I would think that Bilstein may be interested in your answer too).
If you convert the adjustment range to 1 - 10 instead of 0 -9 just to simplify the math, my average front setting is (6+5+4)/3 = 5. 5 is the midpoint of the 1 - 10 range.
What's your definition of traditional?
Mine would be any combination where the front is set equal to, or softer than the rear (i.e. a softer rear would be nontraditional). By that definition, the number of traditional settings to try are half of the total possible settings.
Of those left, I eliminated full or nearly full soft (8 and 9) in both the front and the rear due to the fact that the car is lowered to ROW height. And then I took that a step further in the front due to the fact that a C4 has more of its weight in the front compared to a C2, (eliminating 7,8 and 9).
From there, the number of settings to experiment with is fairly small.
5/5, 6/5
4/4, 5/4, 6/4
3/3, 4/3, 5/3, 6/3
2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6
0/0, 0/1, 0/2, 0/3, 0/4, 0/5, 0/6.
That's it. Have I tried them all? Of course not. Have I tried the extremes to get a benchmark? Of course I have. And probably 7 - 10 of the others until I triangulated on what felt best. 0/3 for TWS.
So what is so untraditional about 0/3?
I don't know what you mean by "guessing" with "quite a bit of certainty". Is that like "definitely a probability"? But seriously, you started with a false assumption (full stiff and full soft).
Now if you were to say that 0/3 is also outside the window of those shock's capability, I would certainly like to know on what basis you would say that. (I would think that Bilstein may be interested in your answer too).
Sounds like you have it all figured out brotherman.
