Learned some very interesting Moton info at PRI
12-21-2009, 06:09 PM
#61
Team Owner
Thread Starter
12-22-2009, 01:15 PM
#64
Rennlist Member
Ah, how about the next time the State Dept. sends you to the school there we hook up. Wish I was in the position to fly you up here. I would have already done it.
12-22-2009, 01:21 PM
#65
Team Owner
Thread Starter
12-22-2009, 04:41 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
Patrick, as I understand it the range of damping for the Club Sport shock is between 400 lbs/in and 1600 lbs/in, though you should contact Lex at Moton to get the official word on it.
As far as setup, you need to determine where you are racing the car most (big smooth tracks, little twisty tracks, smooth, bumpy etc) and how well designed your suspension is. No question that too stiff can sacrifice ultimate grip on smooth sweepers, but on tracks with lots of transitions, or cars with compromised geometry, stiffer springs can produce lower lap times.
For ride height, I think that it is a balance between having a lower car and the pluses (less weight transfer, better aero) and minuses (compromised geometry at the lower height, altered roll centers, reduced suspension travel) it entails vs having a higher car with exactly the opposite strengths and weaknesses. I would say that first you want to pick the spring rates, because that will be the determining factor in how low you can go, and then decide how low you want to go.
As far as setup, you need to determine where you are racing the car most (big smooth tracks, little twisty tracks, smooth, bumpy etc) and how well designed your suspension is. No question that too stiff can sacrifice ultimate grip on smooth sweepers, but on tracks with lots of transitions, or cars with compromised geometry, stiffer springs can produce lower lap times.
For ride height, I think that it is a balance between having a lower car and the pluses (less weight transfer, better aero) and minuses (compromised geometry at the lower height, altered roll centers, reduced suspension travel) it entails vs having a higher car with exactly the opposite strengths and weaknesses. I would say that first you want to pick the spring rates, because that will be the determining factor in how low you can go, and then decide how low you want to go.
You bring up an interesting point when you say that too stiff a setup is not great for long, smooth sweepers. In my mind this is just where I saw this setup as an advantage. I know there is the point where you sacrifice mechanical grip when limiting body roll, or conversely to a point, the more roll you have the greater transfer into the tyres and that allows them to work to their maximum level. Still, I would have thought that on a long smooth sweeper we could afford to limit the body roll and go around as if on rails?
12-22-2009, 10:06 PM
#67
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: intellectual slum of Rochester, NY
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick,
I had promised to get back to you, and have failed to do so thus far...here's what little I can contribute....
I would suggest that you do contact Moton; I would suspect that a revalving would be a good idea. Is it possible for you to send me a link to the kit that you have or are thinking of ? Some specs would be helpful.
Spring rates determine ride and handling, the difference between front and rear rates (spring split) affect the lateral balance of the car. So far, nothing new here.
Lower rate springs give better Contact Patch Load control, with the obvious increase in suspension travel....as I indicated earlier, more suspension travel can be a less than good thing if the geometry is not right to begin with. Higher spring rates limit suspension travel, mask the effects of geometry changes, and increase the rate of heat input to the tire. To generalize, more experienced drivers will tend to make use of lower spring rates. The front to rear split is determined by CG location, roll center heights (geometry), tire characteristics, anti-roll bar settings.
Only a couple of dampers will be able to achieve the compression-biased settings that I talked about earlier; you might inquire with Moton what they think of trying to achieve at least an even split between compression and rebound...interesting to hear their thoughts.
More later.
I had promised to get back to you, and have failed to do so thus far...here's what little I can contribute....
I would suggest that you do contact Moton; I would suspect that a revalving would be a good idea. Is it possible for you to send me a link to the kit that you have or are thinking of ? Some specs would be helpful.
Spring rates determine ride and handling, the difference between front and rear rates (spring split) affect the lateral balance of the car. So far, nothing new here.
Lower rate springs give better Contact Patch Load control, with the obvious increase in suspension travel....as I indicated earlier, more suspension travel can be a less than good thing if the geometry is not right to begin with. Higher spring rates limit suspension travel, mask the effects of geometry changes, and increase the rate of heat input to the tire. To generalize, more experienced drivers will tend to make use of lower spring rates. The front to rear split is determined by CG location, roll center heights (geometry), tire characteristics, anti-roll bar settings.
Only a couple of dampers will be able to achieve the compression-biased settings that I talked about earlier; you might inquire with Moton what they think of trying to achieve at least an even split between compression and rebound...interesting to hear their thoughts.
More later.
12-23-2009, 12:34 AM
#68
Rennlist
Basic Site Sponsor
Basic Site Sponsor
So do you mean that the inherent range of damping is that 4-16 you quote Larry, or that they are capable of being valved within that range? In other words can I just slap on another higher rated spring and provided it falls at or below 1600lb/in I'm ok? I will check with Moton also. Sounds like they're a good bunch to deal with from what I hear.
You bring up an interesting point when you say that too stiff a setup is not great for long, smooth sweepers. In my mind this is just where I saw this setup as an advantage. I know there is the point where you sacrifice mechanical grip when limiting body roll, or conversely to a point, the more roll you have the greater transfer into the tyres and that allows them to work to their maximum level. Still, I would have thought that on a long smooth sweeper we could afford to limit the body roll and go around as if on rails?
You bring up an interesting point when you say that too stiff a setup is not great for long, smooth sweepers. In my mind this is just where I saw this setup as an advantage. I know there is the point where you sacrifice mechanical grip when limiting body roll, or conversely to a point, the more roll you have the greater transfer into the tyres and that allows them to work to their maximum level. Still, I would have thought that on a long smooth sweeper we could afford to limit the body roll and go around as if on rails?
I found that compared to similar cars with softer springs, my car was noticeable faster in transitions and tight corners. I did seem to have a little less grip in the sweepers, but maybe it was my imagination. Ponder this, if stiffer springs are faster in the twisty stuff, and also provide more grip in the sweepers, why would you ever want to run soft springs?
One thing that was CRITICAL was that with the super stiff springs, I had to re-adjust my shocks for every track. A click or 2 was the difference between being out front, or off the pace because of poor grip. It was not a "set it and forget it" kind of car.
Finally, I do not understand is what the90 is saying about compression biased shocks. Isn't that the point of a 2 way (or greater) shock? So that I can increase the compression independently of the rebound and "bias" the shock towards compression if I want to? BTW I do agree that more compression is better than more rebound.
__________________
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
Larry Herman
2016 Ford Transit Connect Titanium LWB
2018 Tesla Model 3 - Electricity can be fun!
Retired Club Racer & National PCA Instructor
Past Flames:
1994 RS America Club Racer
2004 GT3 Track Car
1984 911 Carrera Club Racer
1974 914/4 2.0 Track Car
CLICK HERE to see some of my ancient racing videos.
12-23-2009, 08:43 AM
#69
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Patrick,
I had promised to get back to you, and have failed to do so thus far...here's what little I can contribute....
I would suggest that you do contact Moton; I would suspect that a revalving would be a good idea. Is it possible for you to send me a link to the kit that you have or are thinking of ? Some specs would be helpful.
Spring rates determine ride and handling, the difference between front and rear rates (spring split) affect the lateral balance of the car. So far, nothing new here.
Lower rate springs give better Contact Patch Load control, with the obvious increase in suspension travel....as I indicated earlier, more suspension travel can be a less than good thing if the geometry is not right to begin with. Higher spring rates limit suspension travel, mask the effects of geometry changes, and increase the rate of heat input to the tire. To generalize, more experienced drivers will tend to make use of lower spring rates. The front to rear split is determined by CG location, roll center heights (geometry), tire characteristics, anti-roll bar settings.
Only a couple of dampers will be able to achieve the compression-biased settings that I talked about earlier; you might inquire with Moton what they think of trying to achieve at least an even split between compression and rebound...interesting to hear their thoughts.
More later.
I had promised to get back to you, and have failed to do so thus far...here's what little I can contribute....
I would suggest that you do contact Moton; I would suspect that a revalving would be a good idea. Is it possible for you to send me a link to the kit that you have or are thinking of ? Some specs would be helpful.
Spring rates determine ride and handling, the difference between front and rear rates (spring split) affect the lateral balance of the car. So far, nothing new here.
Lower rate springs give better Contact Patch Load control, with the obvious increase in suspension travel....as I indicated earlier, more suspension travel can be a less than good thing if the geometry is not right to begin with. Higher spring rates limit suspension travel, mask the effects of geometry changes, and increase the rate of heat input to the tire. To generalize, more experienced drivers will tend to make use of lower spring rates. The front to rear split is determined by CG location, roll center heights (geometry), tire characteristics, anti-roll bar settings.
Only a couple of dampers will be able to achieve the compression-biased settings that I talked about earlier; you might inquire with Moton what they think of trying to achieve at least an even split between compression and rebound...interesting to hear their thoughts.
More later.
Can we start with your background as I don't understand the context of some of your comments? Are you an engineer? What theoretical and real world experience do you have with suspension design/setup? One reason I ask is because you are using a lot of engineering terms, but not in a way I have ever heard in the context of racing suspension.
I don't really follow the CPL-centric view you seem to be taking (I now assume you mean contact patch loading). A tire works best at certain loads. In static operation, you want to be at that peak. Of course that is not possible as loads change dramatically with cornering and braking forces. The mean is the static weight balance, on a closed course. But tires are sized to take the outside cornering load and braking loads. Thus the mean may be a terrible place to try to operate in corners and under braking. OTOH, if you are taking this in the context of minimizing variance under cornering (perhaps with curbs, etc), then I agree and understand what you are trying to say here.
I am with Larry on the shock setup. I really don't follow the compression-biased setting thing and why you state this is so hard to get. Shouldn't any 2-way (or greater) shock be able to do that? And why can't almost any fixed or single adjustable be valved that way, if that is what you want?
Thanks
02-25-2010, 10:01 AM
#70
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need info
Gentlemen. I am glad I found you. I have been running a Mazda RX8 and just switched to the 996 C4S. It is currently stock and I am trying to map out the changes I need to make to the suspension. Can you help?
*** Car is ued 50-50 Street and track and only do HPDE events. I only drive on the weekends or to the airport or dinner. I can live with a compromise that is a bit stiffer than most. But I still want a wife setting to soften it up when taking her to dinner.
It has been difficult thus far to get all of the necessary info to calculate the role centers, role stiffness, etc., etc., etc. Does anyone have the data on the stock M030 Suspension (Should be the same as the turbo except weight). I would like to start crunching numbers to do some simulations. (Projecting spring rates, bars, ride height, etc.)
Also, I am familiar with the JIC single adjustable product from my previous car. But I am not at all familiar (first hand) with the Bilstein, H&R or Moton. One thing I really want to avoid is rip and replace in a year after I am more familiar with the car. I was underwhelmed with the ability to tune the setup from the single adjustable.
Guys - Can you offer me opinions on 2 things?
1) If i go to 600# F and 800# rear with Bilstein or other, would this be jarring on the street (even if set to soft)?
2) Would I need the expense of Motons to accomplish the wife setting with these rates?
All input is appreciated from this crowd. Thanks.
*** Car is ued 50-50 Street and track and only do HPDE events. I only drive on the weekends or to the airport or dinner. I can live with a compromise that is a bit stiffer than most. But I still want a wife setting to soften it up when taking her to dinner.
It has been difficult thus far to get all of the necessary info to calculate the role centers, role stiffness, etc., etc., etc. Does anyone have the data on the stock M030 Suspension (Should be the same as the turbo except weight). I would like to start crunching numbers to do some simulations. (Projecting spring rates, bars, ride height, etc.)
Also, I am familiar with the JIC single adjustable product from my previous car. But I am not at all familiar (first hand) with the Bilstein, H&R or Moton. One thing I really want to avoid is rip and replace in a year after I am more familiar with the car. I was underwhelmed with the ability to tune the setup from the single adjustable.
Guys - Can you offer me opinions on 2 things?
1) If i go to 600# F and 800# rear with Bilstein or other, would this be jarring on the street (even if set to soft)?
2) Would I need the expense of Motons to accomplish the wife setting with these rates?
All input is appreciated from this crowd. Thanks.
02-25-2010, 03:37 PM
#72
Rennlist Member
It's not necessarily the brand of shocks you buy, but the type. If you drive your car a fair bit of the time on the road AND with the wife, you don't want it set up too much like a race car IMHO. I would check out a German brand called KW. Even in their relatively cheap Variant 3 range, the shocks have high speed release valves and they are very forgiving on bumpy or rough roads yet excellent on the track. Straight out of the box these would be great for most people doing DE events. Very comfortable on the road and very good on the track.
03-02-2010, 10:38 AM
#73
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. I am looking harder at the KWV3. I like the looks of them. They may be the cheapest option that gives any real setup adjustability also.
Do you know the motion ratios for the 996?
Do you know the motion ratios for the 996?
03-02-2010, 03:43 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
Maybe try the 996 forums? Or start a new thread in here asking that question. People tend not to re read old threads so they may not see your questions in here. 
