PIC Performance Coilovers
08-02-2006, 02:00 PM
#51
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
What you can't see in the picture is the widened opening inside the upper mount, that will allow for the bumpstop to fit inside. The bumpstop has been revised for this application. Extending the upper mount maintains the same amount of shock travel, while still allowing the bumpstop to do its job.
Shortening the shock rod length would not have done the same thing.
Shortening the shock rod length would not have done the same thing.
08-02-2006, 02:05 PM
#52
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Noob4Life)
why do i feel ive had this conversation before.... oh wait...
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161
whats the point of the bumpstop fitting nicely in the top hat if the shock body doesnt? from what i CAN see of the top mount, it certainly wouldnt fit. id appreciate another look from the far angle anyway.
[edit]nvm, here it is.
sneak in another pic.
youre right, shock travel is increased, only because youve limited the use of the bumpstop alone. seems like removing the bumpstop completely would give the same effect...
Modified by Tyson at 6:03 PM 8/2/2006
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161
whats the point of the bumpstop fitting nicely in the top hat if the shock body doesnt? from what i CAN see of the top mount, it certainly wouldnt fit. id appreciate another look from the far angle anyway.
[edit]nvm, here it is.
sneak in another pic.
youre right, shock travel is increased, only because youve limited the use of the bumpstop alone. seems like removing the bumpstop completely would give the same effect...
Modified by Tyson at 6:03 PM 8/2/2006
08-02-2006, 02:10 PM
#53
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
Indeed, the shock body doesn't fit inside the upper mount. There is no way to make the shock body fit inside the upper mount with the size of these shock bodies, without a radical redesign of the upper mount.
The use of the bumpstop might've been limited if we had used a lower-rate bumpstop then what we are using. In this application, the bumpstop is revised to perform the same functions it had before, in addition to preventing the shock body from making contact with the upper mount under forceful rapid compression. So unlike the design of the GC upper mounts, these were deisgned around a different purpose.
Extending the upper mount simply to raises the point at which the shock mounted to the chassis, because EF owners have issues with lowering in the front.
The use of the bumpstop might've been limited if we had used a lower-rate bumpstop then what we are using. In this application, the bumpstop is revised to perform the same functions it had before, in addition to preventing the shock body from making contact with the upper mount under forceful rapid compression. So unlike the design of the GC upper mounts, these were deisgned around a different purpose.
Extending the upper mount simply to raises the point at which the shock mounted to the chassis, because EF owners have issues with lowering in the front.
08-02-2006, 02:18 PM
#54
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Noob4Life)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Noob4Life »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In this application, the bumpstop is revised to perform the same functions it had before, in addition to preventing the shock body from making contact with the upper mount under forceful rapid compression. </TD></TR></TABLE>
howd you do that? make it really stiff? that doesnt make for a good function of the bumpstop.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Extending the upper mount simply to raises the point at which the shock mounted to the chassis, because EF owners have issues with lowering in the front.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
which would have been accomplished by a shorter shock rod like i said.
howd you do that? make it really stiff? that doesnt make for a good function of the bumpstop.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Extending the upper mount simply to raises the point at which the shock mounted to the chassis, because EF owners have issues with lowering in the front.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
which would have been accomplished by a shorter shock rod like i said.
08-02-2006, 02:28 PM
#55
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
Yes, the bumpstop has been made stiffer. Is it worse? If you spend a lot of time on the bumpstops, perhaps. With the setups that we have been tracking, this has not been an issue.
What the bumpstops contribute to the overall spring rate at that corner may be much higher, but their function is more of a safeguard now then before.
There are few ways to work around the lack-of-lowering issue with the EF's using these shock bodies, while dealing with bottoming-out issues like we are discussing. Shortening the shock rod is not one of them, as it has been tried. It does sit the corner lower, but it reduces available stroke more-so than we would have liked. The use of the stiffer bumpstop achieved more desirable results with less undesirable side effects, so we went with that.
I've read that thread before, and have prepared for the inevitable comparisons that I knew would arise. Surprisingly few people have made the comparison so it hasn't been an issue for me to explain it.
What the bumpstops contribute to the overall spring rate at that corner may be much higher, but their function is more of a safeguard now then before.
There are few ways to work around the lack-of-lowering issue with the EF's using these shock bodies, while dealing with bottoming-out issues like we are discussing. Shortening the shock rod is not one of them, as it has been tried. It does sit the corner lower, but it reduces available stroke more-so than we would have liked. The use of the stiffer bumpstop achieved more desirable results with less undesirable side effects, so we went with that.
I've read that thread before, and have prepared for the inevitable comparisons that I knew would arise. Surprisingly few people have made the comparison so it hasn't been an issue for me to explain it.
08-02-2006, 03:18 PM
#56
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (PIC Performance)
if you replaced the bumpstop with sometihng as stiff and thin as a metal washer, what good is that for functioning as a bumpstop?
ideally, youre looking for a smooth, progressive increase in compression force of the bumpstop, before the physical limit of the shock internally bottoming out.
and you havent convinced me how shortening the shock rod is any different than mounting the same sized shock rod higher.
but ive heard enough. good luck to you and your customers.
Modified by Tyson at 5:26 PM 8/2/2006
ideally, youre looking for a smooth, progressive increase in compression force of the bumpstop, before the physical limit of the shock internally bottoming out.
and you havent convinced me how shortening the shock rod is any different than mounting the same sized shock rod higher.
but ive heard enough. good luck to you and your customers.
Modified by Tyson at 5:26 PM 8/2/2006
08-02-2006, 04:36 PM
#57
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
Ideally, yes. We are working in less than ideal conditions. The results are a compromise, and the compromise is a very stiff bumpstop, necessary to allow the rest of the coilover to function well.
Shortening the rod length would do two things: decrease the available stroke length, and limit available droop. With short-travel shocks such as these, both stroke length and droop are in short supply, so it is necessary to do whatever possible to preserve what we have available.
With these shocks, total available stroke is 80mm. We assume that the maximum the bumpstop may become compressed is 10mm, leaving it at a height of 15mm. (While the bushing in the upper mount is hard rubber, there is a metal sleeve inside which technically will not compress, so we factor in minimal compression of the rubber in the upper mount bushing itself). With the extended upper mount installed, the rim of the topmount sits at 81mm of stroke. Uncompressed, ~9mm of the bumpstop rests inside the upper mount opening. So, at theoretical maximum compression, there would still be 5mm of bumpstop sticking out of the upper mount. Adding in the extra 1mm of unused travel length (81mm - 80mm stroke), that leaves 6mm between the top of the shock body and the upper mount in a hypothetical situation where maximum compressive force is seen at that corner. In theory, we are safe. In practice, we have yet to see this theory disproven.
Installed, using a standard upper mount, the shock will mount 27mm higher than if installed with our extended upper mounts. Removing 27mm of shock rod would reduce available stroke length to 53mm, which is unacceptable.
We've chosen to provide the customers with ability to lower their cars further than they were able to with other products on the market, without sacrificing stroke length/droop. To do this, a stiffer bumpstop was necessary. If we have instead chosen to maintain a pgressive nature from spring compression to bumpstop compression, other compromises would have had to be made. We decided that the overall best route to go was with the route that we had taken. So far, as have not had any problems, but I appreciate your well-wishing.
Shortening the rod length would do two things: decrease the available stroke length, and limit available droop. With short-travel shocks such as these, both stroke length and droop are in short supply, so it is necessary to do whatever possible to preserve what we have available.
With these shocks, total available stroke is 80mm. We assume that the maximum the bumpstop may become compressed is 10mm, leaving it at a height of 15mm. (While the bushing in the upper mount is hard rubber, there is a metal sleeve inside which technically will not compress, so we factor in minimal compression of the rubber in the upper mount bushing itself). With the extended upper mount installed, the rim of the topmount sits at 81mm of stroke. Uncompressed, ~9mm of the bumpstop rests inside the upper mount opening. So, at theoretical maximum compression, there would still be 5mm of bumpstop sticking out of the upper mount. Adding in the extra 1mm of unused travel length (81mm - 80mm stroke), that leaves 6mm between the top of the shock body and the upper mount in a hypothetical situation where maximum compressive force is seen at that corner. In theory, we are safe. In practice, we have yet to see this theory disproven.
Installed, using a standard upper mount, the shock will mount 27mm higher than if installed with our extended upper mounts. Removing 27mm of shock rod would reduce available stroke length to 53mm, which is unacceptable.
We've chosen to provide the customers with ability to lower their cars further than they were able to with other products on the market, without sacrificing stroke length/droop. To do this, a stiffer bumpstop was necessary. If we have instead chosen to maintain a pgressive nature from spring compression to bumpstop compression, other compromises would have had to be made. We decided that the overall best route to go was with the route that we had taken. So far, as have not had any problems, but I appreciate your well-wishing.
08-02-2006, 04:39 PM
#58
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (PIC Performance)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PIC Performance »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Shortening the rod length would do two things: decrease the available stroke length, and limit available droop.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
absolutely the same thing as an extended top hat without allowing the shock body to fit inside.
youve answered my question. no need to attempt any further.
Shortening the rod length would do two things: decrease the available stroke length, and limit available droop.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
absolutely the same thing as an extended top hat without allowing the shock body to fit inside.
youve answered my question. no need to attempt any further.
08-02-2006, 04:47 PM
#59
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cali
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (PIC Performance)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PIC Performance »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Shortening the rod length would do two things: decrease the available stroke length, and limit available droop. With short-travel shocks such as these, both stroke length and droop are in short supply, </TD></TR></TABLE>
with your type of shock, you get little to no droop at all when lowered, so why are you worried about it when shortening the shock rod?
you posted a picture from VIR of a car up on jack stands, and said something like "droop is over rated." I once saw another race car with that little droop, his suspension was bound up bad.
Im a big fan of droop, and not lifting that out side rear tire. Some people say it doesn't make a difference, i think it does, but don't have any prof to show it.
with your type of shock, you get little to no droop at all when lowered, so why are you worried about it when shortening the shock rod?
you posted a picture from VIR of a car up on jack stands, and said something like "droop is over rated." I once saw another race car with that little droop, his suspension was bound up bad.
Im a big fan of droop, and not lifting that out side rear tire. Some people say it doesn't make a difference, i think it does, but don't have any prof to show it.
08-02-2006, 04:52 PM
#61
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (slammed_93_hatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">with your type of shock, you get little to no droop at all when lowered, so why are you worried about it when shortening the shock rod?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Thats like saying "An Evo already gets poor gas mileage - why try to get as much mileage out of it as possible?" We are working within limits, but we would like to work to the extent that our limits allow. We don't have much droop, and droop is a good thing, so we do not want to reduce it any further than what we have.
There is droop - there is almost always droop. My caption was a joke, I figured most were able to catch the humor. Chad's suspension is not bound up, and he does lift the inside rear.
If these things were an issue, then our coilovers would not perform as well as other setups that do not have the same issues. However, our coilovers seem to be performing quite a bit better than the competition. In which case, we can safely make the assumption that we are doing something right.
Is there room for improvement? Of course, there always is, and that is always a goal of ours. Another is to establish a reputation through on track performance, something that we also do and will continue to do. We believe that it will open people's minds and cure some of the one-track thinking that exists in the racing community as far as what they think is good and what actually works.
Thats like saying "An Evo already gets poor gas mileage - why try to get as much mileage out of it as possible?" We are working within limits, but we would like to work to the extent that our limits allow. We don't have much droop, and droop is a good thing, so we do not want to reduce it any further than what we have.
There is droop - there is almost always droop. My caption was a joke, I figured most were able to catch the humor. Chad's suspension is not bound up, and he does lift the inside rear.
If these things were an issue, then our coilovers would not perform as well as other setups that do not have the same issues. However, our coilovers seem to be performing quite a bit better than the competition. In which case, we can safely make the assumption that we are doing something right.
Is there room for improvement? Of course, there always is, and that is always a goal of ours. Another is to establish a reputation through on track performance, something that we also do and will continue to do. We believe that it will open people's minds and cure some of the one-track thinking that exists in the racing community as far as what they think is good and what actually works.
08-02-2006, 05:11 PM
#63
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (slammed_93_hatch)
There's nothing "JDM" about our coilovers, we are not asking anybody to like them, least of all those who have pre-conceived notions of what (who's) works, and what doesn't.
Our cars have enough available shock travel that they are able to perform well during on-track use. Spring rates have been selected according to what the driver feels comfortable using, and what they feel they are most successful with. To that extent, they are working, and working well.
Our cars have enough available shock travel that they are able to perform well during on-track use. Spring rates have been selected according to what the driver feels comfortable using, and what they feel they are most successful with. To that extent, they are working, and working well.
08-02-2006, 05:14 PM
#64
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">absolutely the same thing as an extended top hat without allowing the shock body to fit inside.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I feel that this last statement might be misleading if left unclarified:
They will accomplish the same thing, but to differing degrees. With the method we used, we sacrifice less droop and stroke length, as detailed in my previous post.
If you yourself have any more questions that you don't feel like posting in this thread, feel free to PM me.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I feel that this last statement might be misleading if left unclarified:
They will accomplish the same thing, but to differing degrees. With the method we used, we sacrifice less droop and stroke length, as detailed in my previous post.
If you yourself have any more questions that you don't feel like posting in this thread, feel free to PM me.
08-02-2006, 05:32 PM
#66
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (vietnameeh)
That is good, but some of us seem to share differences of opinion. Keep in mind that ours are a specialized application and some of what is covered will not generalize to other products.
While some of the fundamental principles remain the same (having more available shock travel and maintaining tire contact and a linear progression from the coil's spring rate to the inclusion of the bumpstops spring rate are both generally good things), some of the specifics of our design and ourproduct make these things non-applicable. Nonetheless, we factor these things in during design and the sum of the parts will work in harmony to still achieve desirable results.
While some of the fundamental principles remain the same (having more available shock travel and maintaining tire contact and a linear progression from the coil's spring rate to the inclusion of the bumpstops spring rate are both generally good things), some of the specifics of our design and ourproduct make these things non-applicable. Nonetheless, we factor these things in during design and the sum of the parts will work in harmony to still achieve desirable results.
08-02-2006, 05:33 PM
#67
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (vietnameeh)
Im still confused about how the top hat works. I have GC upper mounts and the koni shock body fits inside the mount, giving it more travel.. How does PIC top mount work ?
08-02-2006, 05:34 PM
#68
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Rob.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rob. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Im still confused about how the top hat works.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161
</TD></TR></TABLE>
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161
08-02-2006, 05:39 PM
#70
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161</TD></TR></TABLE>
YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I know how the GC top hats work (koni shock body fits inside the top mount) I have the Koni/GC Combo on my civic....
Modified by Rob. at 7:56 PM 8/2/2006
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161</TD></TR></TABLE>
YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I know how the GC top hats work (koni shock body fits inside the top mount) I have the Koni/GC Combo on my civic....
Modified by Rob. at 7:56 PM 8/2/2006
08-02-2006, 05:42 PM
#71
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: at the track
Posts: 5,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Rob.)
Chad looks HAWT in that Hollister shirt.
on my GC top hats, the bump stop would have to be damn near fully compressed before the shock body is going into the mount. . .
on my GC top hats, the bump stop would have to be damn near fully compressed before the shock body is going into the mount. . .
08-02-2006, 11:57 PM
#73
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Rob.)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Rob. »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I know how the GC top hats work (koni shock body fits inside the top mount) I have the Koni/GC Combo on my civic....
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you da man.
YOU'RE AN IDIOT. I know how the GC top hats work (koni shock body fits inside the top mount) I have the Koni/GC Combo on my civic....
</TD></TR></TABLE>
you da man.
08-03-2006, 08:29 AM
#74
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161</TD></TR></TABLE>
Tyson, you are too patient.
oh lord....
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1497161</TD></TR></TABLE>
Tyson, you are too patient.
08-03-2006, 08:52 AM
#75
Future Texas Boy
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SoCal Redneck
Posts: 18,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (b17gsr)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by b17gsr »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Tyson, you are too patient.</TD></TR></TABLE>
He has the pateince of a pre-school teacher. We should change his name to Mrs. Lippy.
Tyson, you are too patient.</TD></TR></TABLE>
He has the pateince of a pre-school teacher. We should change his name to Mrs. Lippy.