An interesting find...

[Rotary Junkie]

After setting up my BMW 330I with quite soft spring rates, just how I like it, and my LSD tune, I took it to the 'Ring to test it against the stock suspension/LSD and the FC suspension/LSD with default values. The verdict was:

1. Mine

2. Stock Suspension/LSD

3. Default values

My guess is that the stock suspension was soft enough for 'Ring duty, but it coulda been better controlled (I found it a bit looser than mine. The stabilizers were too soft, as well.) The default values lost about a second and a half against stock, as they were about as soft as a rock pillow.

So, is that FC suspension always a good thing if you don't tune it?

Apparently not.

 

[Scaff]

After setting up my BMW 330I with quite soft spring rates, just how I like it, and my LSD tune, I took it to the 'Ring to test it against the stock suspension/LSD and the FC suspension/LSD with default values. The verdict was:

1. Mine

2. Stock Suspension/LSD

3. Default values

My guess is that the stock suspension was soft enough for 'Ring duty, but it coulda been better controlled (I found it a bit looser than mine. The stabilizers were too soft, as well.) The default values lost about a second and a half against stock, as they were about as soft as a rock pillow.

So, is that FC suspension always a good thing if you don't tune it?

Apparently not.

It has been discussed a number of times before, but in a nut-shell, NO the default FC values are not ideal at all. They are set-up very stiffly and would only be a reasonable starting point for a very flat and smooth track, for the 'ring they are far too stiff.

You will also notice that as you move from Sport to semi-race to FC suspension all the default values get stiffer.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Yes, but you also run into the cars that are ridiculously too soft. (Silvia, Cougar, most of the musclecars in general, etc)

I wasn't trying to say (again) that the default values are far from good, but the surprise was the stock suspension being quicker. Just surprised me.

Like a GTS-t 1989 Skyline that got spun once (stock) being quicker around Nurburgring than a GT-R of the same vintage, despite the power disadvantage and the GT-R getting a clean lap. Attribute it to less weight and better weight distribution. (Wasn't I who did the testing. Don't think he's a member here, though.)

 

[Scaff]

Yes, but you also run into the cars that are ridiculously too soft. (Silvia, Cougar, most of the musclecars in general, etc)

I don't disagree that some cars are softer than other with FC suspension, however they are all stiffer with FC that the stock version

I wasn't trying to say (again) that the default values are far from good, but the surprise was the stock suspension being quicker. Just surprised me.

On a bumpy track like the 'ring it doesn't surprise me at all, take it to a more 'modern' track (by that I mean smoother) and the opposite is often true. However get FC set-up well for a track and its almost always faster than stock.

Like a GTS-t 1989 Skyline that got spun once (stock) being quicker around Nurburgring than a GT-R of the same vintage, despite the power disadvantage and the GT-R getting a clean lap. Attribute it to less weight and better weight distribution. (Wasn't I who did the testing. Don't think he's a member here, though.)

Hmmm not a big fan of anecdotal 'information' of this nature to illustrate anything, far too much unknown for this to be of much use in this discussion.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Parnelli Bone]

I sometimes do tests like this too: i'll drive a car completely stock, then add some better parts and see what i can get away with on the tracks. 💡

By the way, i've noticed something interesting in gT games. Take a car that's been in GT1 or 2 and is also in GT4 like a Silvia K's. In gt1 and 2, you can see all the spring rates even while the suspension is still stock. Add a sports suspension and they'll get noticeably stiffer. Add as semi-racing suspension, and the springs are even stiffer.

In gt4, you can buy a Silvia K's and put a semi-racing suspesion on it. Nowadays, you can modify springs with a S-R suspension, so you get to see all the spring values and here's what i noticed:

1. The minimum spring rates on a semi-racing suspension correspond to stock spring rates on the Silvia K's in GT1 and 2 (2.2 kg/mm or thereabouts).

2. The "default" spring rates from a semi-racing suspension in GT4 correspond to the set rates of a sport suspension in GT1 or 2. (i believe about 3.3 kg/mm or thereabouts).

Therefore we can conclude that the minimal spring rates from a semi-racing suspension in GT4 correspond to a car's stock springs in GT4; hence, many muscle cars have (predictably) very mooshy springs when theyr'e stock...and they don't get much firmer till you buy the full-custom parts. 💡 Hope this all makes sense.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

On a bumpy track like the 'ring it doesn't surprise me at all, take it to a more 'modern' track (by that I mean smoother) and the opposite is often true. However get FC set-up well for a track and its almost always faster than stock.

Regards

Scaff

Well, I'd almost have to think that a good setup would be better than stock. After all, we don't care about NVH out on the racetrack, we care about stability, control and cornering capability. Of course, a setup for the 'Ring prolly won't be as quick around a smoother track (Fugi, Tsukuba, etc) as one made for the smoother conditions. But that stiffer setup will not be conductive on Sarthe, the 'Ring, El Capitan, etc. as it will be upset by the possible wheelhop caused by the stiffer settings combined with the irregularities of the track.