Stewart Development re-valved Bilsteins
 

Roughly two months ago I ordered a set of re-valved shocks from Bernie at Stewart Development (SD). I decided upon the SD shocks because Bilsteins are a mono tube shock of excellent quality, because Bernie happily provides shock velocity/force charts with all of his shocks, they’re several hundred dollars less than other similar alternatives, I was curious about how his shock would compare with the Koni Sports, FCM re-valved Bilsteins, and GR-2s I have on the other family Miatas, and Bernie doesn’t add a Shraeder valve to fill the nitrogen reservoir below the fluid chamber.

Of those reasons only the lack of a Shraeder valve needs explanation. If there’s no Shraeder valve it can’t be knocked off and it can’t leak. The contrary argument is that lots of top shelf multi-adjustable shocks have Shraeder valves so that they can be quickly and easily disassembled for revalving and re-building; that’s a big plus if diving into the guts of your shocks is at all important to you. Because I’m not planning on revalving or rebuilding these shocks I’ve opted to embrace the KISS principal of engineering which follows the precept, “Keep it simple, stupid”.

I received the shocks on the day Bernie said I would, which cost him a bundle in FedEx shipping costs. The shocks came individually packaged in their original boxes and beyond the SD and placement location decals, the very slight tool marks where the shocks were clamped for disassembly, and the dyno graphs in the invoice envelope, there is no external evidence that they’re anything other than off-the-shelf NA HD Bilsteins.

Looking over the dyno graph the first thing that jumped to mind was, “dang; that’s a lot of rebound damping for stock springs”. Here’s one of the graphs Bernie provided:

-oops; can't figure out how to put the graph here, so it's down below.

Here’s another one of Bernie’s graphs showing my shock compared to a spec Miata shock: - down below too...

And here’s a graph I sent to Bernie showing his shock compared to other popular Miata shocks: - yep, down below.

With images of the shocks jacked down tight onto the bump stops in my mind I sent out an email to Bernie about my concerns and he responded that that’s how he sets up all the shocks with stock springs, they’ll be fine, and if I’m not completely satisfied he’d rework them. With those assurances, on the car they went.

A few words about the car:

It’s a ’95 with 28k miles, it has a Torsen, de-powered steering rack, Racing Beat 15/16” front bar, Mazdaspeed 14mm rear bar, stock springs all around, FCM tophats and bumpstops (36/46), 11 year old tires, and the ride height is 12.75” front, 13.5” rear.

After installing the shocks, and putting a few hundred miles on the car, here’s an updated version of what I wrote Bernie:

I’m surprised by how much the shocks have “broken in” over the past several hundred miles. They went from so stiff that control over rough roads was quite compromised, to a good to very good combination of handling and compliance. Impressions over the first few dozen miles are quite different from impressions garnered over the last hundred or so.

In many cases, such as roll control, transitional response, and feel at the limit, they’re absolutely brilliant. For most other driving, including droning down the highway or polking around the back roads, they’re reasonably good with room for improvement.

The greatest opportunity for improvement is in ride quality. The chassis is in essentially constant motion over nearly all road surfaces, and over some particularly poor surfaces (Cataldo Road, Vacaville) this can be fatiguing and even punishing.

Here are some additional notes I sent, and haven’t sent, to Bernie:

The chassis follows moderate to large road undulations too closely which causes the chassis to pitch in response. Pitching over rough large amplitude bumps can be so great that driver input (both throttle and steering) can be adversely affected to the degree that it becomes quite jerky. This is the shocks weakest point.

The inside front tire can be made to skip over road surface over tight bumpy corners. The inside wheel feels like it “hangs” above the road surface before re-contacting and regaining grip. The chassis and/or drivetrain sometimes feels like it “winds” up – an odd sensation not noticed before on the other cars and possibly attributed to jerky driver input resulting from large chassis pitch.

High-g cornering on moderately rough to rough corners can cause the steering wheel to saw back and forth as the inside tire gains and looses traction.

Occasionally lifts inside powered wheel when accelerating from a stop into a corner. Not noticed on the FCM or Koni equipped cars.

The chassis doesn’t appear to jack down onto the bump stops except very rarely and only in corners with bumps that would be challenging to any shocks or chassis. In consequence the shocks aren’t harsh though the excessive pitching fore and aft is both tiring and detrimental to control.

The car is very predictable and easy to control at the limits. This is the shocks strongest point. In this regard it is better than the Koni Sports at either extreme of adjustment, and seemingly equal to the FCM Bilstein car.

Oversteer or understeer can be easily and confidently induced with steering or throttle inputs. I noticed no tendency to snap-oversteer despite attempts to induce oversteer by chopping the throttle in tight corners at the limit of traction.

Roll control and transitional response are both excellent, and seemingly as good as or possibly better than the FCM Bilstein car which has roughly double the spring rates.

While I’m surprised that they shocks work as well as they do with as much rebound damping as they have, they may have just a bit too much. The pitching I’ve noticed (about 1.5 to 2 Hz.) can be duplicated on the Koni Sports equipped car by setting the rebound damping to its maximum setting. And while less rebound damping will reduce pitch motion, it should also improve grip on the rougher surfaces where the inside tires can’t drop to the road surface fast enough, and where the slow rebound causes the chassis to drop to meet the road a bit more than it should or than is optimum for either ride or overall traction.

Conclusion:

It would be easy enough to get the impression that the shocks don’t work. Actually, they work quite well and many who have them are reportedly very happy with them. In their present form they might be the hot setup for auto crossing or road racing on a smoother surface, I’ll leave that to others far better qualified to judge.

My criticisms are based on hammering the chassis on relatively rough back roads, combined with my certain knowledge that with regard to handling and comfort I can have my cake and eat it too.

On a rough back road comfort and handling aren’t mutually exclusive; they’re complementary as compliance is one of the key requirements for traction. Another key element is feel; and this the SD Bilsteins have in spades.

The trick is to improve the compliance without sacrificing too much of the feel. Bernie’s got some ideas, and in a few weeks we’ll see how they work.

Wow, excellent post. I wish I had that kind of experience to write such a good review.

This sounds like it explains why my car feels like it just wants to go faster and faster around corners. It feels so good as it approaches the limits.

Yet, my wife describes a section of bridge she crosses as "boingy" I admit my shock knowledge is minimal. Good job working with Bernie to help get us a nicely dialed revalve. If I increase spring rates, then I will definitely get them revalved.

The SD shocks do work better the faster you go; I think that's a reflection of Bernie's experience with competition cars and Penske shocks. Unfortunately, on the street, you can't always drive that way.

Boingy is a good description of how these shocks work on certain roads. If you increase spring rates you'll likely find the shocks work better and are less Boingy, as the springs will do a better job of extending the shocks to conform with the road surface.

Thanks for setting up the group buy, Djp; I wouldn't have this project if it weren't for your efforts.

Jim

Boingy. That's the perfect description of how I feel about my Tein RA's - the earlier monotube. Constant motion. I'll be watching this closely. I'm hoping Bernie can nail down dual use (street/track) shock valving. I'll be buying when he does.

Great stuff. Glad Bernie is still working on these, and glad someone is providing him with some really detailed feedback on how to improve the revalves for dual-use.

It seems highly re-bound damped performance shocks are the norm, not the exception. If I were to guess at a cause it's because the press, and then the customer, thinks he needs a "racing" shock because it sounds cooler than a "comfort" shock. The builder then gives us what we want; or at least what we think we want.

I also think it's a phenomena related to McPherson struts and their weird camber changes as the suspension moves. Anything to keep camber in control - be it springs, shocks, or sway bars - helps keep the handling from going to crap in a hard corner. In this case, the stiffer the part the better.

Fortunately for us Miatas have fantastic suspensions straight from the factory. If we don't screw them up by slamming, tucking, poking, stretching or otherwise undoing all the good the engineers at Mazda built into them, a good set of shocks that keep the tires firmly planted over a variety of challenging surfaces at speed is almost all they need. That's what I'm aiming for and I've got high hopes it will work out.

Thanks for taking the to provide this feedback. I think it is exactly what Bernie needed. I think most of us have such limited experience that we just aren't able to describe what's going on. My SD revalved bilsteins are sooo much better than the AGX shocks they replaced, that I'm thrilled with the revalves. I kept my FM springs because I wanted comfort around town.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the least experienced drivers on this website, but I'm happy to give it a shot. Bernie's good to work with, and he's interested in what we all have to say, so we should end up with a great shock.

Thanks for this thread.

One of my projects after this season will be to get my suspension up to a higher level for autocross. I currently have FCMs with 550/350 springs. I need higher spring rates. I'll probably end up with something in the neighborhood of 750/425-475. So, I'll need a revalve.

My decision will revolve around where to send them off to get the revalve. If Bernie is around here, can he comment on whether he can provide a no-compromises revalve for those heavier spring rates? What would those dyno plots look like?

This is going to be an important upgrade, and I need it done right. I'll probably end up interviewing several parties to choose who will do the shocks.

seems to me the super high rebound is just a "Band-aid" way to increase spring rates when cornering...I spent a lot of time making my setup not "boingy" when I DD, nor does the rear feel like it's going to launch you from the car when you hit bumps.

I have Bilstein HD on stock springs now and its amazing, no more boing and very little airborne action. I think my daily handles better than my track car.

^+1 Brain, it is an autocross stock class trick to increase rebound rates to sky-high territory to jack down the suspension. For those of us that can use appropriate spring rates to begin with, this is not the way to go fast.

Do you mean "increase rebound damping" or "increase rebound speed"?

acutally, looking again, the low-speed looks to be inline with all the other shocks on the graph with the exception of increased bump. fwiw, I have koni sports with 400/250# springs and I leave them at full soft...

No-compromise race re-valves are what Bernie does; I think he's mostly a Penske ($$$$) tuner. This foray into compromised street Miatas is something relatively new for him, which is perhaps why we're sorting out bugs.

Certainly both Bernie and Shaikh are worth talking to, as are Emilio, Keith, and perhaps a few others. Hard to go wrong with that crowd.

If not the main reason, it's certainly one of the more important ones.

And it works too, but taken too far you loose grip over bumps.

Hustler, are we talking NA or NB Bilsteins?

On a back road I'm not surprised at all. Shaikh pretty much said the same thing, though I think he might have been talking about autocrossing:

"Surprisingly, the grip of the ’93LE with stock springs was higher than the ’91[450/350 springs]! The effect of spring rate reducing ultimate grip started to become apparent."

And here's some more Shakh wisdom:

"Three Key words: GRIP is KING! A fast suspension needs to have some compliance, otherwise grip is reduced. This means it also needs to be somewhat comfortable for the driver to have confidence. Thus, ultimate grip is tied to having a degree of compliance (ie comfort). Therefore, handling and comfort MUST co-exist!"

That is weird, as my Koni's with stock springs set full soft feel like they're pretty much at the limit as far as spring rate is concerned. Based on your experience, maybe they have more damping than is immediately apparent to my butt dyno.

You don't race with them that way, or do you?

autoxed with them, no track. i need more dampening in the front, bumps are very harsh, rears feel great.

Great description of the effects of too much rebound damping:

I had a feeling this was gonna happen. See my inputs in the GB thread, I was trying to be helpful, but I got smacked down by some holier-than-thou posts:
https://www.miataturbo.net/showthrea...t=44328&page=3

Having lots of rebound damping got popular because it works well on tall plush cars/trucks with soft springs. It dynamically lowers them during transitions, improving grip and stability. Also for autox cars running grippy tires which are rules-limited to use stock springs. Doesn't work well on lower cars with stiffer springs and better suspension geometries, such as the miata. Unfortunately too many didn't realize that what works on tall sedans, doesn't work on sports cars. Works reasonably well on smooth racetracks, but awful on real-world bumpy backroads.

Lots of people who've never tried a really good setup and have bad setups (e.g. stiff springs on OTS Konis), don't know what they're missing, and think, "I've got hot shit".

NA HD bilsteins. I'm picking my car up to add some compliance...and run 700/400 springs. Hopefully that works with the big 9" wheels. I think the 450/350 is the formula for skinny rubber but I am talking out of my ass.

I think I prefer stiffer springs over softer springs, regardless of which produces the lower lap time...however, I prefer the low lap time to "confidence."

I hope i didn't give the impression that my car handles poorly. It's actually great. I think the OP was saying this is a really good product that can be made great. :2cents:

OP can correct me if I am putting words in mouth. I don't want people to get the wrong impression about what is being discussed here.

That's pretty darn close to what I'm saying.

I'm also very glad that folks like Jason are adding their input, and I'm hoping this will remain a smack down free thread. Experienced shock tuners are pretty rare, and I'm looking for all the help I can get.

+1 to what Jason said. Shaikh would tell you the same, the high rebound DAMPING RATES on stock class autocrossers are intended to 'jack down' the car during transitional maneuvers. Ie, they don't allow the car to return to it's nominal ride height. Effectively, a proper stock class Miata will be utilizing the bump stops as their spring, and thus spring rate. Stop tuning becomes alpha-omega in these situations.

I, otoh, have the option to tune the suspension as I see fit, as do you guys with dd Miatas. We have to choose spring rates appropriate to our task, and work to keep the car off the stops except in extreme circumstances.

For me, I am finding that the "appropriate" spring rate is the one which is stiff enough to control the car's body quickly enough to not allow it to wallow in very quick transitional maneuvers. I am finding that the car can carry enough speed, and has enough grip, to handle slaloms very quickly, but the body is still responding to the car's last move while in the next element. It doesn't take a set quickly enough to use the grip available.

Hustler, I hope you KNOW that your dampers can handle the stiffer springs. 700 is a fairly substantial rate, and needs a strong shock to control it's movement. I feel that having the wrong damping is worse than having the wrong spring rate.

I like my FCMs, don't regret the purch. What I do regret is that I wasn't sure what I would be doing with the car when I ordered them. They were spec'd as a sometimes street driven, sometimes autocrossed, sometimes tracked setup. Now I want a 100% autocross setup, which I feel would need to be stiffer that the others because of the transitional nature of the activity.

What does "jack down" mean in layman terms?

Shock is so stiff in rebound that when you hit a bump or the body rolls during transition, the rebound damping doesn't allow the suspension to return to it's normal static position. Since an autocross car is almost always in transition, with really strong rebound damping the car effectively becomes lower than it would be statically while on course.

Combine weak stock spring rates, high grip from r-comps, tall bump stops, and limited suspension travel in general, the "stock" autocrosser is going to use it's stops as springs.

In non-autoxing situation you want all the rebound to "control" heavier springs from effectively making your car a bouncy honda or acting as a catapult when driving over speed bumps.

Who is right? Logic tells me the second quote intends to say "rebound damping" which makes sense and is consistent with Webby.

I'm going to post my shock curves later for you guys to analyze. I'm on FM springs.

I was whoring around at Cobb/AST a couple weeks ago for the "open house" and the AST guy discussed how little information you get from a shock dyno. He went on to say that he's put shocks together on an Evo that were rock hard, revalved them and produced an almost identical dyno, and they worked properly.

Its all over my head though.

welcome to my life.

yeahright

First, I'm sure it was a cool experience.

Next, I really don't get how that could be, though. Seriously, can someone surmise how this could be? The only thing that I can think of is it being different in terms of when it was actually mounted in the car, like the suspension was bound up, or something.

No shit. I was very surprised to hear this. He said they still use it religious to measure a multitude of things on each shock they make and test, but essentially looking at a sample of shock dyno sheets is not the way to select a shock. At first I discounted this logic, but then considered this same guy is engineering very good stuffs for podim cars in all levels of racing from NASA, SM, Auto-x, ALMS LMP, and even a spec shock for all of the Rolex series next year. I was the annoying guy who kept asking stupid questions.

It was pretty cool to hold all the shock parts in your hand and make sense of the mysterious metal tube we spend so much cash on. It also quickly became apparent that I'll never buy another twin-tube shock. I'm looking forward to 949 Club Sport Xidas...especially with AST 30-minutes away.

While I'm not ready to discount the value of shock dyno graphs, one thing Bernie pointed out was that if you look at a shock test taken to the 5 in/sec. velocity, verses the same shock taken to the 10 in/sec. velocity, they'll produce slightly different curves. The graph I've posted called "Jim Lowe" shows this pretty clearly.

I guess the lesson here is that like a lot of tools the shock dyno isn't perfect, and it's certainly not a substitute for testing on the car. It's still a cool tool, and I'll bet an experienced tuner gets some pretty useful information out of it, but maybe you just can't take it too literally.

one thing they are useful for is making sure they match side to side...

I suspect part of the problem with comparing shock dyno graphs is the same problem you have comparing chassis dyno graphs... no two read identically. So if Shaikh builds a shock that works, dynos it on HIS dyno and then makes 100 of them that dyno the same they'll probably all work reasonably similarly.

If AST or Bernie or Moton or whomever takes Shaikh's graph and match it on THEIR shock dyno, odds are the shock will work differently.

Doesn't he used to valve for Shaikh (FCM)?

I've always heard great things from FCM. I'd assume his valving should be similar or the same to FCMs, or am I wrong?

No, he doesn't used to valve for Shaikh. Bernie's been in business since 1975.

Hard to define similar, but certainly not the same.

Arrrrrggggh!! When will this myth ever DIE?

:facepalm:

Jason, do you have a link to a really good scientific (non-mythical) explanation of the motions rebound and compressive damping control?

Sorry, I haven't seen one.

I'm basing what I know on a series of spring/mass/nonlinear damper simulations I did just for my own education. Most of what I've learned has since been corroborated by snippets I've seen in different places (e.g. shock absorber handbook, by Dixon), various papers on the web, and by discussions with FatCat.

IN this thread, I wrote long missives on part of the myth:
http://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread...highlight=myth
Read the exchange between me and "andris".

UPDATE: Stewart Development re-valved Bilsteins
 

UPDATE:

I sent Bernie my shocks, he's gotten them, and he's just about to re-tune the valving in response to my feedback. Based on comments from this thread, from Bernie, and from others - and recalling that this is a hard driven street setup on stock springs - this past Monday I sent Bernie the following e-mail:

Good morning, Bernie.

I’ve been diligently studying dyno graphs for a number of Miata shocks, both OEM and aftermarket, designed for comfort verses performance, and both successful and unsuccessful setups.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that the more successful high performance but not brutal shocks suitable for stock spring rates fall into the following damping ranges:

Bump:
@ 5 in/sec approximately 75 lbs force
@10 in/sec approximately 100 lbs force

Rebound:
@ 5 in/sec between 175 and 200 lbs force
@10 in/sec between 200 and 275 lbs force

Some designs make a distinction in damping between the front and rear shocks; others do not or show only a minor difference.

I think I’d be inclined to try a setup with the rear shocks set to the lower end of the range, and the fronts to the higher end of the range, so they’d look something like this:

Front:
Bump @ 5 in/sec approximately 75 lbs force
Bump @10 in/sec approximately 100 lbs force

Rebound @ 5 in/sec 200 lbs force
Rebound @10 in/sec 275 lbs force

Rear:
Bump @ 5 in/sec approximately 75 lbs force
Bump @10 in/sec approximately 100 lbs force

Rebound @ 5 in/sec 175 lbs force
Rebound @10 in/sec 200 lbs force

I know it won’t necessarily seem this way, but the values I’ve presented probably average on the higher end of the scale and there’s room to go lower with regard to force.

I spoke with Bernie this morning and he's planning of working over the shocks early next week. He hasn't any objection to my proposed numbers, but coming from the race side of the suspension field these are lower numbers than he's accustomed to. If anyone would like to propose alternatives I'm all ears. In lieu of compelling alternative numbers we've agreed to go with what you see here.

Sorry, double post

Is there an average car velocity and weight that the "race" rates are used on? If there is, then you could probably create a scale between car velocity/weight and damping rate, and see if your values for the miata fall within the range.

Car weight and velocity are certainly a big part of the equation, but for a street shock I think perhaps the biggest concern is the nature - usually abysmal - of the road surface itself. Race tracks are far better maintained and more forgiving as far as the surface is concerned.

See m.net thread. Damper stiffness front to rear should be proportional to spring rates front and rear.