Springs
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by siboii08 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Cutting stock springs..Just trying to save some cash again </TD></TR></TABLE>
do not cut stock springs... EVER!
do not cut stock springs... EVER!
If you're too cheap to buy lowering springs, then your car shouldn't be lowered...
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=264797
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1365016
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=935313
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=264797
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1365016
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=935313
taken from vortex....
The first problem is it increases the spring rate at both ends, but usually not by
the same percentage, so frequently the rear spring rates increase more than the
fronts and the rebound frequencies go to hell. A car will *feel* comfortable
even with high spring rates if the rates are matched so that the rebound frequencies
are close, and usually with the rear a little slower. (Whenever you go over a bump
the suspension goes up and down several times before it settles. The rate it which
is oscillates is what I'm talking about.) If the rear oscillates faster than the front it'll
feel HORRIBLE, and will perform badly.
Beyond that, lowering any car with Macpherson struts generally has no
positive effect. The geometry of the strut works against you and the
roll center (the virtual axis about which the car leans during lateral loading)
actually lowers faster than the CG, giving the car a *greater* tendency
to lean in corners. The higher rate springs helps counter that, but
because of the first problem, it usually comes out wrong. At best you
*need* the higher rates to keep up with the increased tendency to lean, and
at worst you quickly fall behind and even the cut spring can't provide
a high enough rate to overcome the bad geometry.
Many struts simply aren't meant to operate at the lower ride height.
They're at the end of their range and will bottom out. That or the car
will hit its bumpstops, and any time the suspension bottoms out,
it simply ceases to be suspended. Go drive a go-kart on a bumpy
surface and you'll appreciate why that's bad.
What I said was that lowering the car inherently makes the car want to lean *MORE* under a lateral load.
It's not intuitive, but that's the way it works. The tendency for a car to lean is not just about spring rates and sway bars.
The geometry of the strut is equally important. When the lower A-arm is higher on the inside (chassis side) and lower on the
outside (wheel side), then the lateral force from cornering is directed straight down the A-arm between the tire's contact
patch and the CG. (more or less.. it's never quite that idealized, but let's start there). Ok, now when you lower the car,
let's say we lower it enough that the lower A-arm is lower on the inside and higher on the outside (not uncommon
actually), the lateral force from cornering is still directed on a straight line between the tire's contact patch
and the CG, but now that line passes through the A-arm at an angle, and the same amount of lateral force as above
now is distributed between the solid A-arm and the strut, and the strut will compress. In the first instance
the side load is taken mostly by the A-arm down its length, and in the second the strut collapses under
the side load because the force is not pointed straight down the A-arm.
Let me see if I can express it with a diagram. I just hacked this up.

The one on the left is an idealized representation and would almost never
be possible with a street car. That strut configuration wouldn't
compress at all during cornering. In reality stock and lowered are varying
degrees of what you see on the right, but the problem of the unwanted compression
force is real and gets worse and worse the lower the car goes. The technical way to
represent what's happening is by defining the Roll Center of the car as
the point about which it will appear to lean, which in the left diagram would be
right on the CG, and on the right somewhere below it. The further the CG is from
the roll center, the more the car leans under the same cornering load. If you
lower enough the roll center will actually be under ground.
The first problem is it increases the spring rate at both ends, but usually not by
the same percentage, so frequently the rear spring rates increase more than the
fronts and the rebound frequencies go to hell. A car will *feel* comfortable
even with high spring rates if the rates are matched so that the rebound frequencies
are close, and usually with the rear a little slower. (Whenever you go over a bump
the suspension goes up and down several times before it settles. The rate it which
is oscillates is what I'm talking about.) If the rear oscillates faster than the front it'll
feel HORRIBLE, and will perform badly.
Beyond that, lowering any car with Macpherson struts generally has no
positive effect. The geometry of the strut works against you and the
roll center (the virtual axis about which the car leans during lateral loading)
actually lowers faster than the CG, giving the car a *greater* tendency
to lean in corners. The higher rate springs helps counter that, but
because of the first problem, it usually comes out wrong. At best you
*need* the higher rates to keep up with the increased tendency to lean, and
at worst you quickly fall behind and even the cut spring can't provide
a high enough rate to overcome the bad geometry.
Many struts simply aren't meant to operate at the lower ride height.
They're at the end of their range and will bottom out. That or the car
will hit its bumpstops, and any time the suspension bottoms out,
it simply ceases to be suspended. Go drive a go-kart on a bumpy
surface and you'll appreciate why that's bad.
What I said was that lowering the car inherently makes the car want to lean *MORE* under a lateral load.
It's not intuitive, but that's the way it works. The tendency for a car to lean is not just about spring rates and sway bars.
The geometry of the strut is equally important. When the lower A-arm is higher on the inside (chassis side) and lower on the
outside (wheel side), then the lateral force from cornering is directed straight down the A-arm between the tire's contact
patch and the CG. (more or less.. it's never quite that idealized, but let's start there). Ok, now when you lower the car,
let's say we lower it enough that the lower A-arm is lower on the inside and higher on the outside (not uncommon
actually), the lateral force from cornering is still directed on a straight line between the tire's contact patch
and the CG, but now that line passes through the A-arm at an angle, and the same amount of lateral force as above
now is distributed between the solid A-arm and the strut, and the strut will compress. In the first instance
the side load is taken mostly by the A-arm down its length, and in the second the strut collapses under
the side load because the force is not pointed straight down the A-arm.
Let me see if I can express it with a diagram. I just hacked this up.

The one on the left is an idealized representation and would almost never
be possible with a street car. That strut configuration wouldn't
compress at all during cornering. In reality stock and lowered are varying
degrees of what you see on the right, but the problem of the unwanted compression
force is real and gets worse and worse the lower the car goes. The technical way to
represent what's happening is by defining the Roll Center of the car as
the point about which it will appear to lean, which in the left diagram would be
right on the CG, and on the right somewhere below it. The further the CG is from
the roll center, the more the car leans under the same cornering load. If you
lower enough the roll center will actually be under ground.
It is not recommended because a large number of DIYers don't have, or use the formula to calculate the spring rates before and after cutting.
if a torch is used to cut the spring, you change the metallurgy and cause sagging.
most people cut the springs to lower the vehicle and evaluate their sucess by the appearance... end up cutting too much and run out of suspension travel.
spring rate to suspension travel relationship is best left to companies who have the resources to experiment.
Others make the mistake of cutting too much of the springs. this has the opposite effect of raising the car because the spring rate has skyrocketed.
Once you take metal off you can't put it back.
In other words, buy the skunk2 ones. Or look here in the F/S for used ones.
if a torch is used to cut the spring, you change the metallurgy and cause sagging.
most people cut the springs to lower the vehicle and evaluate their sucess by the appearance... end up cutting too much and run out of suspension travel.
spring rate to suspension travel relationship is best left to companies who have the resources to experiment.
Others make the mistake of cutting too much of the springs. this has the opposite effect of raising the car because the spring rate has skyrocketed.
Once you take metal off you can't put it back.
In other words, buy the skunk2 ones. Or look here in the F/S for used ones.
Trending Topics
just say NO! to CHOP! I have a buddy that chopped his springs on a new avenger and it was a disaster! he traded the car in with 3000 miles on it instead of fixing all the problems that came from it. If I have learn anything it is, Don't be cheap when your life rides on it!
While many people are against cutting springs, I for one belive if done correctly it will give you the look you want safely. Many people make the mistake of cutting to much, or cutting the wrong part of the spring. I will warn you that you will not get the best suspension performance and shock life will reduce.
Now when cutting your springs you only want to remove 1/2 - 2 coils, you will be cutting the dead coils, or coils with less spaces. You must also cut at the same spot or accross the spot where the spring normally ends so that it was still sit correctly within the perch. You must also make sure the spring will stay compressed within the strut, a loose fitting spring will cause horrible ride quality and may cause your spring to slide out from the housing causing all sorts of problems.
Although this affect's spring rate, if cut correctly using the proper tools & measurments, an even spring rate can be acheived.
I'd say do it, then save up $$ for some Coil-overs, you'll be more then fine.
**BTW a 1 1/2 - 2 coil cut will drop you about 2 in.+ on a civic.
Now when cutting your springs you only want to remove 1/2 - 2 coils, you will be cutting the dead coils, or coils with less spaces. You must also cut at the same spot or accross the spot where the spring normally ends so that it was still sit correctly within the perch. You must also make sure the spring will stay compressed within the strut, a loose fitting spring will cause horrible ride quality and may cause your spring to slide out from the housing causing all sorts of problems.
Although this affect's spring rate, if cut correctly using the proper tools & measurments, an even spring rate can be acheived.
I'd say do it, then save up $$ for some Coil-overs, you'll be more then fine.
**BTW a 1 1/2 - 2 coil cut will drop you about 2 in.+ on a civic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
k20-rice-cookin-gmachine
Honda Civic (2006 - 2015)
6
Oct 3, 2007 12:05 PM
bo0sted
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
8
May 28, 2004 01:45 PM




