brb, slamming my car. with chrome wheels.

I'm sick and tired of this "higher spring rates, use less compression damping" myth. Do a search for my posts on this topic on miata.net. Bot compression and rebound damping damp the spring-mass SYSTEM.

The *bounce frequency* aka spring stiffness should be as soft as possible that keeps you off or in a reasonable part of the bumpstop while cornering while having enough remaining bump travel to absorb bumps. The conflicting requirement is that you want the car as low as possible to lower the CG as much as possible.

Softer springs is better BUT the conflicting requirement is you don't want a shit ton of body roll because that adversely affects the tire's camber while cornering, and said body roll also compresses the outside suspension reducing remaining available bump travel.

Softer springs is better because the tires will have more grip on bumps. This is the only reason softer springs is better.

With the conflicting requirements there is a compromise that depends on the road surface primarily. The smoother the surface the lower and stiffer you can run. For bumpy backroads you will need a softer taller setup.

For lower grip conditions (e.g. rain) you will have less body roll generated so you can make the setup softer but also lower. Additionally in the wet tires lose more grip when they pass their peak grip point (in their slip angle curve). This means when you get in a slide it takes longer to regain grip. So you don't want to lose grip in the first place, so the setup needs to be softer than dry conditions.

That's the general guidelines. As to the optimal setup, you would have to look at who's fast. 949 seems to have found a fast track setup. Fatcat has nice setups for autox and backroads. It is 949 that has found that very low and very stiff works well for the track.

Not yet, I was so close to just buying the EFR6258 so I could stare it, but I spent most of the "turbo setup" money on more tooling and a TIG welder instead. Attachment 241024

That phone picture is huge..., but if I can get just a little better than that, I should be able to make money with it.

WOW I wish I could weld like that.

Dann

Meanwhile in the Ohlins TTX manual:

So I guess it depends, even if it doesn't turn up in simple simulated spring mass damper systems.

Show me a damper that adjusts both compression and rebound with a single knob, that reduces the compression damping while increasing the rebound.

rofl how many beads is on that plate? I like the one in the top right... looks like turd. :D

The energy transfer occurring between the stored kinetic energy of the sprung mass and potential energy of the spring reminded me of, in a frictionless world, the mechanical equivalent of a lossless resonant LC circuit, where an E&M instead of K&P conversion takes place between a capacitor and an inductor (like mass&spring) and a resistor damps the oscillatory transfer.

The damping "level" is described in terms of Q, for quality. High Q, less loss, less damping; Low Q, more loss, more damping.
"A system with low quality factor (Q < ½) is said to be overdamped. Such a system doesn't oscillate at all, but when displaced from its equilibrium steady-state output it returns to it by exponential decay, approaching the steady state value asymptotically. It has an impulse response that is the sum of two decaying exponential functions with different rates of decay."
"A system with high quality factor (Q > ½) is said to be underdamped. Underdamped systems combine oscillation at a specific frequency with a decay of the amplitude of the signal. Underdamped systems with a low quality factor (a little above Q = ½) may oscillate only once or a few times before dying out."
"A system with an intermediate quality factor (Q = ½) is said to be critically damped. Like an overdamped system, the output does not oscillate, and does not overshoot its steady-state output (i.e., it approaches a steady-state asymptote). Like an underdamped response, the output of such a system responds quickly to a unit step input. Critical damping results in the fastest response (approach to the final value) possible without overshoot. Real system specifications usually allow some overshoot for a faster initial response or require a slower initial response to provide a safety margin against overshoot."
Q=1/2 would be a balanced system, having a linear response.

A significant difference between a spring&mass system in comparison to an LC circuit exists and should be noted since it appears to be relevant to our suspensions. Although "0.5kx^2 and 0.5mv^2" are equivalent in that they're both simple integrals of force in respect to distance, the concerning difference is between x^2, where x=displacement, and v^2, where v=velocity. In the event a large "unexpected" force is applied to the wheel, such as a bump, it works out to where there will be a larger imbalance of stored energy between the sprung mass and the spring. The larger the force, the faster the sprung mass will travel, and the kinetic energy will build as the square of the velocity. I'm nearly positive this is why "high speed" damping adjustment exists, because you want to transfer that energy imbalance into the spring more quickly in order to maintain tire compliance you will need less damping to maintain a linear response. I think that a slightly underdamped shock compression going over a bump, responding quickly and exponentially in position/time (aka overshoot) will upset the chassis the least in the event of a bump (noting that our spring&mass system has a frequency too low to oscillate or repeat itself at all in the short timeframe of this event) and a slightly "overdamped" shock rebound will then respond with an inversely-exponential position/time, which would make the resultant wheel position/time graph very closely mimic a bump.

Well, if you reduce compression with a single knob, the amount of rebound is increased relatively :D Seriously though, the amount of damping needed varies with the "unpredictable force" dependent velocity of the sprung mass and being slightly underdamped improves response time and being a little further from "correct damping" appears to more effectively deal with a "bump". It almost makes you want to feed a linear pot value divided by sampling interval into a PID loop controlling a solenoid field around a damper full of ferrofluid 0_0

Your point being that öhlins have just identified themselves as idiots?

"An indicator of too much suspension pressure is controllable sliding at all speeds and all phases throughout the turns (flat sliding). "

Balls..... my stock bilsteins on my 94 R are blown, I "flat slide" pretty easily.... :(. They are at 175k miles, though.

Put it this way. The quote from the manual you posted is technobabble to me. (Kind of like "Fedspeak")
What year BTW is that manual, and does the current one still have that paragraph?

Big companies can have one department designing hot shit stuff, then a newbie in a pissant department writing documentation... I've seen it many times.

Think about this. If you have a linear spring, and if the car doesn't hit the bumpstops, the mass/spring/damper system is linear. Why should the bump and rebound be asymmetric? Then, think. What is the asymmetry in the system, or desired asymmetric behavior, that justifies asymmetric damper curves?

I would think a bump or any force causing the assembly to act like something other than simply an oscillating spring&mass would be the "asymmetry" due to the exponential energy imbalance (wutta term...) of the sprung mass receiving an external force. This, http://949racing.com/xida-coilover-miata.aspx also implies a non-linear system, right?

Wrong, and quite the opposite. As Army officers my sons were taught at West Point to communicate in a short/concise manner specifically to enhance accuracy and to eliminate unintentional implications. Fortunately you're not writing orders, or you'd kill battalions.

As another example, I'm reminded of the fellow who apologized to a valued friend for not taking the time to write a shorter letter. He was too rushed to cull out the unnecessary bullshit and so his friend was forced to wade through it to get his meaning, hence, the apology. Cull out the unnecessary bullshit.

And btw, that sentence I quoted of yours is an example of why you should write less, but better. Read it and you'll see you've said "short/concise communication can lack unintentional implications". I'm pretty sure you didn't really mean that, but with all the other nonsense I can't be sure.

I'm sure you've got lots to say without quadrupling it. We're not idiots, usually, and can read between the lines; just leave some room between the lines and we'll do the rest. And edit a bit for God's sake! Oy!

Being an old bastard I have to google this shit to see what you young'ens are talking about. I left out the semi-colon and got, "Tenderloin District". Knowing Hustler's ways I thought this was his way of telling the OP he was going to take him down to the Tenderloin and, you know, teach him the ropes. With the ";" I get a completely different result.:facepalm:

This is the most pedantic bullshit I've possibly EVER read. When you get your head out of your ass you'll realize this too. I'm normally a mild mannered man, but I really want to bitch slap you right now, Nick. :vash:

Don't take this wrong, Nick, I'm saying this for your own good. Someday you'll thank me.:fawk:

I like turtles.

Drop spindles///thread

don't blame me, its the counterproductive public education system and their nonsensical ideology that increased workload and lengthy essays somehow make students more useful to society... :D

No. I tried to warn you. You just won't listen.