Raceland Dyno Test Results
12-08-2010, 05:52 AM
#121
Newb
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24
Total Cats: 0
What suspension setup will out preform racelands for the same cost on a daily drivin miata + lower it enough to make 13" wheels not look ridiculous? was looking into buying the racelands because my stock 120k mile stuff has about had it and i didnt want to spend more then maybe 500 bucks. However the dyno results and what was found inside the sleeves does not appeal to me.
Its not a question of price, its a question of "Would you install Rocket Shocks if they were free?" Myself, no. No ******* way. If you would, then you might as well pay whatever they cost (ie: less than a good set of tires) and learn to deal with *** end bouncing all over the place.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2010, 10:54 AM
#122
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
Honestly, you guys are killing me.
Yes, Racelands are cheap. And yes, they serve the basic function of being a damper. But are we seriously talking about investing a bunch of time and effort into these tubes in order to try and maybe sort of approximate the function of a "good" suspension setup? Take the cost of a decent Bilstein / Tein / whatever setup, subtract the cost of a set of these shock bodies and the value of the time you're going to invest into them, and them amortize over the number of years you suspect you'll own the car (or in my case, own the suspension, since my FCM Bilsteins are currently installed on their second Miata).
Is it worth the 30¢ a day you'll save to drive on a mediocre suspension?
Oddly enough, given my above rant I do have some real-world data here. Earlier in the year I installed a set of these Raceland dampers on my '92, to replace the Bilsteins that I took off and installed on my new DD, the '90. (Basically, the Racelands were the cheapest thing I could find, so I figured I'd make it the next owner's problem.)
In the front, I measured the stock shocks that came out of the '90 at 13" from center of lower bolt to top of body, and the Bilsteins are the same. The Raceland fronts measured 12.75" however, so that's a quarter inch gain in travel. At the rear, the stockers from the '90 were 9.5", the Bilsteins were 9.25", and the Racelands were a mere 8.625".
One downside is that at the rear, the shock travel is internally limited. IOW, on all the other shocks, the rod is capable of being fully compressed into the shock so that nothing but the threaded portion is sticking out. The Raceleand rears bottomed out with a fair bit of shaft still showing. So be very careful about installing these with cut-down bumpstops. Not that you'd need to- there's plenty of travel back here. I might suggest cutting down the front stops a tad, depending on your desired final ride height.
Here's the front, showing the position of the shock with the suspension compressed to a 13" ride height (center of wheel hub to approximate center of radius of fender lip roll):
And the rear, same height:
(note that I tossed the 350# rear springs that came with 'em, and installed a pair of 7" 250# Eibach springs. They fit perfectly w/o the helper springs. At full droop they are still engaged, and yet they're clearly not going to bind at full compression. )
Yes, Racelands are cheap. And yes, they serve the basic function of being a damper. But are we seriously talking about investing a bunch of time and effort into these tubes in order to try and maybe sort of approximate the function of a "good" suspension setup? Take the cost of a decent Bilstein / Tein / whatever setup, subtract the cost of a set of these shock bodies and the value of the time you're going to invest into them, and them amortize over the number of years you suspect you'll own the car (or in my case, own the suspension, since my FCM Bilsteins are currently installed on their second Miata).
Is it worth the 30¢ a day you'll save to drive on a mediocre suspension?
Oddly enough, given my above rant I do have some real-world data here. Earlier in the year I installed a set of these Raceland dampers on my '92, to replace the Bilsteins that I took off and installed on my new DD, the '90. (Basically, the Racelands were the cheapest thing I could find, so I figured I'd make it the next owner's problem.)
In the front, I measured the stock shocks that came out of the '90 at 13" from center of lower bolt to top of body, and the Bilsteins are the same. The Raceland fronts measured 12.75" however, so that's a quarter inch gain in travel. At the rear, the stockers from the '90 were 9.5", the Bilsteins were 9.25", and the Racelands were a mere 8.625".
One downside is that at the rear, the shock travel is internally limited. IOW, on all the other shocks, the rod is capable of being fully compressed into the shock so that nothing but the threaded portion is sticking out. The Raceleand rears bottomed out with a fair bit of shaft still showing. So be very careful about installing these with cut-down bumpstops. Not that you'd need to- there's plenty of travel back here. I might suggest cutting down the front stops a tad, depending on your desired final ride height.
Here's the front, showing the position of the shock with the suspension compressed to a 13" ride height (center of wheel hub to approximate center of radius of fender lip roll):
And the rear, same height:
(note that I tossed the 350# rear springs that came with 'em, and installed a pair of 7" 250# Eibach springs. They fit perfectly w/o the helper springs. At full droop they are still engaged, and yet they're clearly not going to bind at full compression. )
Reply
0
0
12-08-2010, 02:07 PM
#123
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Joe: you're familiar with the phrase "polishing a turd" right? I was mostly joking about replacing the inserts considering that for about the cost of racelands, you can get a ground-control coilover conversion kit that fits over whatever shocks you want. Price would be a wash and less shock to throw away. But at that point, you're basically in TEIN Territory for their cheaper kits.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2010, 09:29 AM
#129
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 112
Total Cats: 0
Reply
0
0
12-09-2010, 11:21 AM
#135
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
I already threw out the ones that came on the rear of mine, but I do recall that by standing on one I was able to compress it fully, though only just. So I suspect this figure is probably close to true.
I fail to see, however, how the rating of the helper spring is of any consequence insofar as the performance of the suspension is concerned. The spring is fully compressed any time the car is sitting on the tires- this spring is only going to expand when the suspension is in considerable droop.
Perhaps someone has an alternate perspective, from from where I stand, it seems that the purpose of this smaller spring is simply to compensate for the fact that the main spring is too short for the application, by holding some sort of tension on it when the suspension is at full droop and thus prevent the main spring from slipping off of its perch.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2010, 11:26 AM
#136
I fail to see, however, how the rating of the helper spring is of any consequence insofar as the performance of the suspension is concerned. The spring is fully compressed any time the car is sitting on the tires- this spring is only going to expand when the suspension is in considerable droop.
Perhaps someone has an alternate perspective, from from where I stand, it seems that the purpose of this smaller spring is simply to compensate for the fact that the main spring is too short for the application, by holding some sort of tension on it when the suspension is at full droop and thus prevent the main spring from slipping off of its perch.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2010, 11:56 AM
#137
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Originally Posted by Almighty Joe
I already threw out the ones that came on the rear of mine, but I do recall that by standing on one I was able to compress it fully, though only just. So I suspect this figure is probably close to true.
I fail to see, however, how the rating of the helper spring is of any consequence insofar as the performance of the suspension is concerned. The spring is fully compressed any time the car is sitting on the tires- this spring is only going to expand when the suspension is in considerable droop.
Perhaps someone has an alternate perspective, from from where I stand, it seems that the purpose of this smaller spring is simply to compensate for the fact that the main spring is too short for the application, by holding some sort of tension on it when the suspension is at full droop and thus prevent the main spring from slipping off of its perch.
I fail to see, however, how the rating of the helper spring is of any consequence insofar as the performance of the suspension is concerned. The spring is fully compressed any time the car is sitting on the tires- this spring is only going to expand when the suspension is in considerable droop.
Perhaps someone has an alternate perspective, from from where I stand, it seems that the purpose of this smaller spring is simply to compensate for the fact that the main spring is too short for the application, by holding some sort of tension on it when the suspension is at full droop and thus prevent the main spring from slipping off of its perch.
an 80-100 lb/in spring is somewhat in the neutral zone as far as whether it's a helper or a tender.
So if you know how springs in series work, they're like resistors in parallel. 1/Kt = 1/K1 + 1/K2 effective rate when both springs are working (not binding).
So with a 100 in series with a 350, you end up with about 230 lb/in.
Which means that when the car is drooping to where the wimpy spring is active, the system rate drops.
What makes MORE sense is to use a stiffer helper (really a tender at that point) so that at static height or normal driving (rough road) you get a lower effective rate and when you lean on the car in a corner, the lighter spring coil binds and you transition to a stiffer rate.
Consider a 200# spring and a 1000# spring: Assuming you're not coil binding for static ride height plus maybe 1 inch of wheel movement upward (compression), you drive around on an effective rate of 167 lb/inch which is very cushiony but when you lean the car in a turn, the 200lb/in spring coil binds and leaves you with 1000lb/in rate.
The problem becomes the nonlinearity at the transition point. The rate of rotation of the car from left to right changes as you cross over.
That's why companies like neubspeed make springs that progressively coil bind. Ideally the progressive spring has a smooth transition from squishy to firm.
Reply
0
0
12-09-2010, 01:33 PM
#139
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Fairfield, California
Posts: 436
Total Cats: -7
Well, they shut down the Raceland Revealed thread at Clubroadster, and they'll probably shut it down at Miata.net as well. Not that I'll lose any sleep over it one way or another if it gets shut down here too, but I'm thinking Joe won't tolerate the same kind of shenanigans here as occurred over at those other two sites. We're an older, wiser, kinder, group of fellows here.
Reply
0
0
