Different Lowering approach
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Different Lowering approach
what if one were to say take the stock top hats, and lengthen them by 1 inch as previously described on this forum. Now if you had lowering springs that dropped one inch, it would increase the tension in those springs back to a stock preloaded spec, or close to it. Now what if one were to do this mod, but instead of lowering springs, use the stock springs to preload them? Would this increase the stiffness of the suspension setup but allow for a nice ride as well? I realize that the stock springs are linear and that it takes constant linear force added to continue to compress the spring.
Let's assume a few things:
without the mod, sag is a given amount. for arguements sake, lets say 2 inches. With the mod, its now only one inch. I guess that topping out would increase under these conditions because of the reduced negative travel. Is this a problem under street conditions?
Oh and for the record I have illuminas. Thanks guys
matt
Let's assume a few things:
without the mod, sag is a given amount. for arguements sake, lets say 2 inches. With the mod, its now only one inch. I guess that topping out would increase under these conditions because of the reduced negative travel. Is this a problem under street conditions?
Oh and for the record I have illuminas. Thanks guys
matt
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Re: Different Lowering approach (powerofdreams8)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by powerofdreams8 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Preloading springs that much would put enormous stress on the top hats and other parts.</TD></TR></TABLE>
You have either never had to qualify your statements, never took highschool physics, or never completed one of those logic cross-check problems in middle-school.
A- the initial forces would be exceeded by the weight of the vehicle once placed on ground.
B- The forces go through the top hat into the fender and to the chassis. If anything the strut places the most stress on the top hats, the springs dont even really effect them due to linear load distribution vertically through the mating materials.
C- I want a real answer, not, "I might know what Im talking about but I cant justify my statements."
You have either never had to qualify your statements, never took highschool physics, or never completed one of those logic cross-check problems in middle-school.
A- the initial forces would be exceeded by the weight of the vehicle once placed on ground.
B- The forces go through the top hat into the fender and to the chassis. If anything the strut places the most stress on the top hats, the springs dont even really effect them due to linear load distribution vertically through the mating materials.
C- I want a real answer, not, "I might know what Im talking about but I cant justify my statements."
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,407
Likes: 5
From: Locash
Re: Different Lowering approach (Mleach)
You're not making sense (I'm not trying to criticize you or sound negative). I don't think you correctly understand how springs work. Have you ever played with a set of coilovers? That would answer your question. You're also misunderstanding the "top hat" mod. That mod is for the strut rod and doesn't change anything about the springs.
None of what you mentioned would effect the spring rate.
By lengthen the top hats, do you mean the part where the strut rod mounts (as in the strut travel correction for lowered cars thread), or are you thinking something like putting a spacer under the top hat where the spring rests? That would only raise your car by the length of the spacer. It wouldn't push down on the springs any harder or "preload" them because the lower spring perch is on the strut body which is free to move up and down. The spring will push back and move the lower spring perch down.
Your ride height is determined by where the lower spring perch rests at a certain position based on how much tension is put on the spring. When you move either spring perch, it affects the ride height, that's it. If you increase the weight in the car, that will decrease the ride height, but not effect the spring stiffness. Spring rate is the amount of force it takes to compress the spring a certain amount. To accomplish something like what you're thinking, you'd need to put some spring compressors on the springs permanently, but you obviously couldn't operate the car like this.
Does any of that help?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If anything the strut places the most stress on the top hats, the springs dont even really effect them due to linear load distribution vertically through the mating materials.</TD></TR></TABLE> What highschool physics or middle school logic class assignment taught you that? That sounds like something Lisa Simpson might say if she tasted the green water at the Duffs theme park. The weight of the car pushes on the springs, the springs push back a certain amount based on their rate. The weight of the car pushes on the strut rods, the strut rods push back a certain amount, but much much less than the springs. Take your springs out and just let the car sit on the struts. You'll see.
I am the lizard queen.... the struts are stiffer than springs...
None of what you mentioned would effect the spring rate.
By lengthen the top hats, do you mean the part where the strut rod mounts (as in the strut travel correction for lowered cars thread), or are you thinking something like putting a spacer under the top hat where the spring rests? That would only raise your car by the length of the spacer. It wouldn't push down on the springs any harder or "preload" them because the lower spring perch is on the strut body which is free to move up and down. The spring will push back and move the lower spring perch down.
Your ride height is determined by where the lower spring perch rests at a certain position based on how much tension is put on the spring. When you move either spring perch, it affects the ride height, that's it. If you increase the weight in the car, that will decrease the ride height, but not effect the spring stiffness. Spring rate is the amount of force it takes to compress the spring a certain amount. To accomplish something like what you're thinking, you'd need to put some spring compressors on the springs permanently, but you obviously couldn't operate the car like this.
Does any of that help?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If anything the strut places the most stress on the top hats, the springs dont even really effect them due to linear load distribution vertically through the mating materials.</TD></TR></TABLE> What highschool physics or middle school logic class assignment taught you that? That sounds like something Lisa Simpson might say if she tasted the green water at the Duffs theme park. The weight of the car pushes on the springs, the springs push back a certain amount based on their rate. The weight of the car pushes on the strut rods, the strut rods push back a certain amount, but much much less than the springs. Take your springs out and just let the car sit on the struts. You'll see.
I am the lizard queen.... the struts are stiffer than springs...
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Re: Different Lowering approach (shaundrake)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by shaundrake »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're not making sense (I'm not trying to criticize you or sound negative). I don't think you correctly understand how springs work. Have you ever played with a set of coilovers? That would answer your question. You're also misunderstanding the "top hat" mod. That mod is for the strut rod and doesn't change anything about the springs.
None of what you mentioned would effect the spring rate.
By lengthen the top hats, do you mean the part where the strut rod mounts (as in the strut travel correction for lowered cars thread), or are you thinking something like putting a spacer under the top hat where the spring rests? That would only raise your car by the length of the spacer. It wouldn't push down on the springs any harder or "preload" them because the lower spring perch is on the strut body which is free to move up and down. The spring will push back and move the lower spring perch down.
Your ride height is determined by where the lower spring perch rests at a certain position based on how much tension is put on the spring. When you move either spring perch, it affects the ride height, that's it. If you increase the weight in the car, that will decrease the ride height, but not effect the spring stiffness. Spring rate is the amount of force it takes to compress the spring a certain amount. To accomplish something like what you're thinking, you'd need to put some spring compressors on the springs permanently, but you obviously couldn't operate the car like this.
Does any of that help?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No I think I do understand the top hat mod, it decreases the distance between the perch and the bottom of the top hats, if you have 8 inch springs, and the distance was once 8 inches, but is now 7, then you have a 1 inch drop plus the preload of the spring. This increases initial tension in the spring. If the initial tension is greater than the weight of the vehicle, it would require a bump force that exceeds spring tension to move it. On top of that, you have the resitance of the strut. But the simplicity of the device is that it is a linear equation:
With the preload, it would take the additional amount of force included in the preload to acheive the same suspension travel prior to the mod: Under stock settings assume the spring and strut result in 2 inches of movement for driving over a sewercap. Under modified settings, it would require the additonal force equal to the preload plus the driving over the sewer cap at the same speed to acheive the same suspension travel.
This is because from an uncompressed position the spring is still compressing the same amount.
If you have an 8inch spring and it takes 1000 lbs to compress it 2 inches, then you have a resultant 6inch spring with 1000lbs initial tension.
If you preload the spring with 500lbs, and a resultant 7inch length then that same 1000lb force would not compress the spring an additional 2 inches, it would only compress the preloaded spring 1inch, a total net compression of 2 inches relative from uncompressed position. its the same net effect. It is the spring compressor you said wasnt possible.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by shaundrake »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What highschool physics or middle school logic class assignment taught you that? </TD></TR></TABLE>
Four years of structures and physics at georgia tech learned me about force distribution through materials duh it was good.
None of what you mentioned would effect the spring rate.
By lengthen the top hats, do you mean the part where the strut rod mounts (as in the strut travel correction for lowered cars thread), or are you thinking something like putting a spacer under the top hat where the spring rests? That would only raise your car by the length of the spacer. It wouldn't push down on the springs any harder or "preload" them because the lower spring perch is on the strut body which is free to move up and down. The spring will push back and move the lower spring perch down.
Your ride height is determined by where the lower spring perch rests at a certain position based on how much tension is put on the spring. When you move either spring perch, it affects the ride height, that's it. If you increase the weight in the car, that will decrease the ride height, but not effect the spring stiffness. Spring rate is the amount of force it takes to compress the spring a certain amount. To accomplish something like what you're thinking, you'd need to put some spring compressors on the springs permanently, but you obviously couldn't operate the car like this.
Does any of that help?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No I think I do understand the top hat mod, it decreases the distance between the perch and the bottom of the top hats, if you have 8 inch springs, and the distance was once 8 inches, but is now 7, then you have a 1 inch drop plus the preload of the spring. This increases initial tension in the spring. If the initial tension is greater than the weight of the vehicle, it would require a bump force that exceeds spring tension to move it. On top of that, you have the resitance of the strut. But the simplicity of the device is that it is a linear equation:
With the preload, it would take the additional amount of force included in the preload to acheive the same suspension travel prior to the mod: Under stock settings assume the spring and strut result in 2 inches of movement for driving over a sewercap. Under modified settings, it would require the additonal force equal to the preload plus the driving over the sewer cap at the same speed to acheive the same suspension travel.
This is because from an uncompressed position the spring is still compressing the same amount.
If you have an 8inch spring and it takes 1000 lbs to compress it 2 inches, then you have a resultant 6inch spring with 1000lbs initial tension.
If you preload the spring with 500lbs, and a resultant 7inch length then that same 1000lb force would not compress the spring an additional 2 inches, it would only compress the preloaded spring 1inch, a total net compression of 2 inches relative from uncompressed position. its the same net effect. It is the spring compressor you said wasnt possible.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by shaundrake »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
What highschool physics or middle school logic class assignment taught you that? </TD></TR></TABLE>
Four years of structures and physics at georgia tech learned me about force distribution through materials duh it was good.
Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: Decatur, GA
Re: Different Lowering approach (Mleach)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No I think I do understand the top hat mod, it decreases the distance between the perch and the bottom of the top hats, if you have 8 inch springs, and the distance was once 8 inches, but is now 7, then you have a 1 inch drop plus the preload of the spring. This increases initial tension in the spring. If the initial tension is greater than the weight of the vehicle, it would require a bump force that exceeds spring tension to move it. On top of that, you have the resitance of the strut. But the simplicity of the device is that it is a linear equation:</TD></TR></TABLE>
no i dont think you do understand. the top hat mod has nothing to do with the compression on the springs. lengthen the top hat, and all you do is extend the shock rod. this mod is only for extending shock travel.
what you are talking about doing, preloading the springs, is physically impossible without some sort of tether between the perch and top hat; a very bad idea unless you have something super duper strong on all three parts(top hat, perch, tether).
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">f you have an 8inch spring and it takes 1000 lbs to compress it 2 inches, then you have a resultant 6inch spring with 1000lbs initial tension.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what you are saying here makes less sense. if you had the spring that was ALREADY exerting however much force upwards on a car at rest sitting on its wheels and you tried to compress it 2 inches, the spring would exert back on the car 1000 more pounds of force, thus rendering your theory inept due to Newton's third law of motion:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sir Issac Newton »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction</TD></TR></TABLE>
then
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Four years of structures and physics at georgia tech learned me about force distribution through materials duh it was good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
you were just brought this little tidbit of information by a Georgia Southern University sophomore that didnt go to GA Tech for a reason
no i dont think you do understand. the top hat mod has nothing to do with the compression on the springs. lengthen the top hat, and all you do is extend the shock rod. this mod is only for extending shock travel.
what you are talking about doing, preloading the springs, is physically impossible without some sort of tether between the perch and top hat; a very bad idea unless you have something super duper strong on all three parts(top hat, perch, tether).
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">f you have an 8inch spring and it takes 1000 lbs to compress it 2 inches, then you have a resultant 6inch spring with 1000lbs initial tension.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what you are saying here makes less sense. if you had the spring that was ALREADY exerting however much force upwards on a car at rest sitting on its wheels and you tried to compress it 2 inches, the spring would exert back on the car 1000 more pounds of force, thus rendering your theory inept due to Newton's third law of motion:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sir Issac Newton »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction</TD></TR></TABLE>
then
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Four years of structures and physics at georgia tech learned me about force distribution through materials duh it was good.</TD></TR></TABLE>
you were just brought this little tidbit of information by a Georgia Southern University sophomore that didnt go to GA Tech for a reason
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Re: Different Lowering approach (Sobe_Death)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sobe_Death »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
no i dont think you do understand. the top hat mod has nothing to do with the compression on the springs. lengthen the top hat, and all you do is extend the shock rod. this mod is only for extending shock travel. </TD></TR></TABLE>
If your strut rod is at full extension and you decrease the distance between the perch and teh top hat by doing this mod, does it not compress teh spring? when you originally removed your stock suspension set up, was there not an initial tension in the spring? Im pretty sure there was.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what you are talking about doing, preloading the springs, is physically impossible without some sort of tether between the perch and top hat; a very bad idea unless you have something super duper strong on all three parts(top hat, perch, tether).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That tether is the strut, unless you have a macpherson type suspension where the spring and the strut are mounted independantly of eachother.
please explain to me how preloading a spring exceeds the force of the spring compression under normal driving conditions.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what you are saying here makes less sense. if you had the spring that was ALREADY exerting however much force upwards on a car at rest sitting on its wheels and you tried to compress it 2 inches, the spring would exert back on the car 1000 more pounds of force, thus rendering your theory inept due to Newton's third law of motion:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
actually newtons law is what makes my theory work. If you install stiffer springs, ones that say have a spring rate of 500lbs, it would require an initial force of 500 lbs before teh spring would yeild one inch.
If you have a spring with a lower spring rate, say 250lbs, you would have to increase the initial loaded condition of the spring to match the the initial loaded condition of the other spring, however, the linear rate would still be less, it would compress more than the stiffer spring under the same force because it would require more compression to reach the same loaded state. F=kd, where K is the spring rate and d is the distance of compression.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">this little tidbit of information by a Georgia Southern University sophomore that didnt go to GA Tech for a reason </TD></TR></TABLE>
Im sure you have your reasons, but its not because GSU has a better physics or math department than GT
Modified by Mleach at 7:41 PM 6/30/2004
no i dont think you do understand. the top hat mod has nothing to do with the compression on the springs. lengthen the top hat, and all you do is extend the shock rod. this mod is only for extending shock travel. </TD></TR></TABLE>
If your strut rod is at full extension and you decrease the distance between the perch and teh top hat by doing this mod, does it not compress teh spring? when you originally removed your stock suspension set up, was there not an initial tension in the spring? Im pretty sure there was.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what you are talking about doing, preloading the springs, is physically impossible without some sort of tether between the perch and top hat; a very bad idea unless you have something super duper strong on all three parts(top hat, perch, tether).
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That tether is the strut, unless you have a macpherson type suspension where the spring and the strut are mounted independantly of eachother.
please explain to me how preloading a spring exceeds the force of the spring compression under normal driving conditions.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what you are saying here makes less sense. if you had the spring that was ALREADY exerting however much force upwards on a car at rest sitting on its wheels and you tried to compress it 2 inches, the spring would exert back on the car 1000 more pounds of force, thus rendering your theory inept due to Newton's third law of motion:
</TD></TR></TABLE>
actually newtons law is what makes my theory work. If you install stiffer springs, ones that say have a spring rate of 500lbs, it would require an initial force of 500 lbs before teh spring would yeild one inch.
If you have a spring with a lower spring rate, say 250lbs, you would have to increase the initial loaded condition of the spring to match the the initial loaded condition of the other spring, however, the linear rate would still be less, it would compress more than the stiffer spring under the same force because it would require more compression to reach the same loaded state. F=kd, where K is the spring rate and d is the distance of compression.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">this little tidbit of information by a Georgia Southern University sophomore that didnt go to GA Tech for a reason
</TD></TR></TABLE>Im sure you have your reasons, but its not because GSU has a better physics or math department than GT
Modified by Mleach at 7:41 PM 6/30/2004
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Re: Different Lowering approach (shaundrake)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by shaundrake »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I am the lizard queen.... the struts are stiffer than springs...</TD></TR></TABLE>
And if this was thh case, then lowering springs wouldnt work at all, because the gap would always be there
I am the lizard queen.... the struts are stiffer than springs...</TD></TR></TABLE>
And if this was thh case, then lowering springs wouldnt work at all, because the gap would always be there
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From: Decatur, GA
Re: Different Lowering approach (Mleach)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If your strut rod is at full extension and you decrease the distance between the perch and teh top hat by doing this mod, does it not compress teh spring? when you originally removed your stock suspension set up, was there not an initial tension in the spring? Im pretty sure there was...
...That tether is the strut, unless you have a macpherson type suspension where the spring and the strut are mounted independantly of eachother.
please explain to me how preloading a spring exceeds the force of the spring compression under normal driving conditions.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what you have been talking about the whole time is essentially a macpherson strut. the only difference between a macpherson strut and what is on cars like the CRX and Civic between 88-2000 is that the macpherson strut is better suited to taking sideways load situations, where the upper A arm and lower control arm on the other applications absorbs those forces.
yes there was tension, as there is on almost every coil-over-strut application out there. this is because when the strut assembly has no load on it, the springs extend the shock to the outer limit of its travel. this mod will not compress the spring unless you extend it several(in excess of 4) inches to where the shock is fully extended with the vehicle weight on the springs. this would utterly destroy your shocks in a matter of minutes on the road. ill draw you a picture:
as you can see, kinda, this is what the stock suspension setup would look like. there isnt a spring in the drawing so bear with me. the piston on the shock is floating happily roughly in the middle of the shock body, so it essentially has full suspension travel. the weight of the car sitting on the strut assembly is what compresses the spring so that the shock is not fully extended. to compress the spring further, you would have to either add weight to the vehicle, or you would have to do something like this:
pretend the same set of circumstances regarding the vehicle as the first photo. notice the taller top hat. notice also that the shock is now fully extended to where the piston contacts the shock body. this is the only other way to decrease the distance from the top hat to the perch using the same spring. of course for this to even happen the top hats would be sticking out above the hood and adding a spacer under the top hat to try and decrease the distance would only result in adding ride height, which is opposite to what you want.
...That tether is the strut, unless you have a macpherson type suspension where the spring and the strut are mounted independantly of eachother.
please explain to me how preloading a spring exceeds the force of the spring compression under normal driving conditions.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what you have been talking about the whole time is essentially a macpherson strut. the only difference between a macpherson strut and what is on cars like the CRX and Civic between 88-2000 is that the macpherson strut is better suited to taking sideways load situations, where the upper A arm and lower control arm on the other applications absorbs those forces.
yes there was tension, as there is on almost every coil-over-strut application out there. this is because when the strut assembly has no load on it, the springs extend the shock to the outer limit of its travel. this mod will not compress the spring unless you extend it several(in excess of 4) inches to where the shock is fully extended with the vehicle weight on the springs. this would utterly destroy your shocks in a matter of minutes on the road. ill draw you a picture:
as you can see, kinda, this is what the stock suspension setup would look like. there isnt a spring in the drawing so bear with me. the piston on the shock is floating happily roughly in the middle of the shock body, so it essentially has full suspension travel. the weight of the car sitting on the strut assembly is what compresses the spring so that the shock is not fully extended. to compress the spring further, you would have to either add weight to the vehicle, or you would have to do something like this:
pretend the same set of circumstances regarding the vehicle as the first photo. notice the taller top hat. notice also that the shock is now fully extended to where the piston contacts the shock body. this is the only other way to decrease the distance from the top hat to the perch using the same spring. of course for this to even happen the top hats would be sticking out above the hood and adding a spacer under the top hat to try and decrease the distance would only result in adding ride height, which is opposite to what you want.
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: austin, tx, USA
Re: Different Lowering approach (Sobe_Death)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Sobe_Death »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what you have been talking about the whole time is essentially a macpherson strut. the only difference between a macpherson strut and what is on cars like the CRX and Civic between 88-2000 is that the macpherson strut is better suited to taking sideways load situations, where the upper A arm and lower control arm on the other applications absorbs those forces.
yes there was tension, as there is on almost every coil-over-strut application out there. this is because when the strut assembly has no load on it, the springs extend the shock to the outer limit of its travel. this mod will not compress the spring unless you extend it several(in excess of 4) inches to where the shock is fully extended with the vehicle weight on the springs. this would utterly destroy your shocks in a matter of minutes on the road. ill draw you a picture:
as you can see, kinda, this is what the stock suspension setup would look like. there isnt a spring in the drawing so bear with me. the piston on the shock is floating happily roughly in the middle of the shock body, so it essentially has full suspension travel. the weight of the car sitting on the strut assembly is what compresses the spring so that the shock is not fully extended. to compress the spring further, you would have to either add weight to the vehicle, or you would have to do something like this:
pretend the same set of circumstances regarding the vehicle as the first photo. notice the taller top hat. notice also that the shock is now fully extended to where the piston contacts the shock body. this is the only other way to decrease the distance from the top hat to the perch using the same spring. of course for this to even happen the top hats would be sticking out above the hood and adding a spacer under the top hat to try and decrease the distance would only result in adding ride height, which is opposite to what you want.</TD></TR></TABLE>
While lowering it would be nice, Im trying to see if it will create an stiffer initial condition. The topout condition would happen only under unloaded conditions, i.e. out of the car, and when the corners tend to unweight under cornering. I do see how the topping out would be a problem, but Im also not talking about using a 4inch extension on the top hats, Im talking about a 1 inch extension. However you do see how this was one of my initial concerns<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I guess that topping out would increase under these conditions because of the reduced negative travel. Is this a problem under street conditions?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I hadnt considered the initial state of the valve in relation to the shock body, your drawings, albeit bad, are helpful. Thanks.
matt
Modified by Mleach at 8:38 PM 6/30/2004
what you have been talking about the whole time is essentially a macpherson strut. the only difference between a macpherson strut and what is on cars like the CRX and Civic between 88-2000 is that the macpherson strut is better suited to taking sideways load situations, where the upper A arm and lower control arm on the other applications absorbs those forces.
yes there was tension, as there is on almost every coil-over-strut application out there. this is because when the strut assembly has no load on it, the springs extend the shock to the outer limit of its travel. this mod will not compress the spring unless you extend it several(in excess of 4) inches to where the shock is fully extended with the vehicle weight on the springs. this would utterly destroy your shocks in a matter of minutes on the road. ill draw you a picture:
as you can see, kinda, this is what the stock suspension setup would look like. there isnt a spring in the drawing so bear with me. the piston on the shock is floating happily roughly in the middle of the shock body, so it essentially has full suspension travel. the weight of the car sitting on the strut assembly is what compresses the spring so that the shock is not fully extended. to compress the spring further, you would have to either add weight to the vehicle, or you would have to do something like this:
pretend the same set of circumstances regarding the vehicle as the first photo. notice the taller top hat. notice also that the shock is now fully extended to where the piston contacts the shock body. this is the only other way to decrease the distance from the top hat to the perch using the same spring. of course for this to even happen the top hats would be sticking out above the hood and adding a spacer under the top hat to try and decrease the distance would only result in adding ride height, which is opposite to what you want.</TD></TR></TABLE>
While lowering it would be nice, Im trying to see if it will create an stiffer initial condition. The topout condition would happen only under unloaded conditions, i.e. out of the car, and when the corners tend to unweight under cornering. I do see how the topping out would be a problem, but Im also not talking about using a 4inch extension on the top hats, Im talking about a 1 inch extension. However you do see how this was one of my initial concerns<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mleach »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I guess that topping out would increase under these conditions because of the reduced negative travel. Is this a problem under street conditions?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I hadnt considered the initial state of the valve in relation to the shock body, your drawings, albeit bad, are helpful. Thanks.
matt
Modified by Mleach at 8:38 PM 6/30/2004
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
Re: Different Lowering approach (Mleach)
Thanks for the Physics lesson....! 
I especially like how you found it important to put that you are a Georgia Tech Architecture Student in your sig....
Anyway, looks like you already got your answer....
Modified by SpyderZEX at 1:41 PM 6/30/2004
I especially like how you found it important to put that you are a Georgia Tech Architecture Student in your sig....
Anyway, looks like you already got your answer....
Modified by SpyderZEX at 1:41 PM 6/30/2004
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bo0sted
Honda Civic / Del Sol (1992 - 2000)
8
May 28, 2004 01:45 PM