# Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both?



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

If you live in states like Arizona, Nevada and all the rest with really great roads, just ignore this post and go get your Full Shine Kit as it comes (with Bilstein HD shocks) and start enjoying....

If you live (like me) in an area with very poor quality roads (read SFBA, Seattle, NYC, Detroit ... just to mention few), then perhaps you can spend some time and read about this pretty interesting experiment we did last weekend.
As few people around here know, I am one of the few "unhappy" Shine customer, because of the very poor ride quality I have with my car on the really bad roads in my area. We have been talking about possible solutions with some members here, but the answer is usually "try different rear springs"...... and in a way it works, it smoothens the ride somehow, but it is not really big improvement. At the same time the handling kind of goes south little bit. You put back the stock springs and it is not the same feeling you have when you drive full Shine. Dick would refuse to collaborate and help combine a real "Shine Mild" kit, so I almost decided to go back to stock springs and keep the Bilsteins. But before that, I managed to find a member with this setup, stock springs and Bilstein that is. So, she let me drive her car for about an hour, over all my ugly sectors on my daily commute, etc and this very important test showed me that the bounciness I have with the Shine Kit is not as many think due to the springs, but mainly due to the way the Bilsteins work! Of course, the ride in her car was better than in mine, but the frequency of the bounces was the same type, on the same spots, with the same pattern. It was just little bit less pronounced. At the same time, the handling was not any near to what a full Shine provides. So, my conclusion then (and yours may vary, as you drive on different roads) was that I would gain about 30% of comfort, but would lose about 70% of handling feel. I mean, I felt I would lose too much as to gain too little, so this option was out...... But an important (for me) conclusion was drawn - The Bilstein shocks are the main reason for the Shine kit to ride badly on my roads! 
So, I decided to do some search on shocks and see if a more comfortable replacement could be found for the Bilsteins. Came here to do search, but it was the same old game ..... somebody asks "Bilstein vs. Koni, what shall I get?" ..... and you there you go with three posts "get this" and four posts "get that" and then someone comes and says "I had both and this is stiffer than that one"..... but then here it comes somebody else that says "well, I have both too, but to me that one is stiffer than this one!"........ Of course, there were some helpful posts too, and in fact I have to thank "pal" for giving me very great feedback and being the final inspiration for me to go this way. The clear answer was that hands had to go deep in the pockets again and a set of Koni Sport (Yellow) Rebound Adjustable were purchased as an attempt to make my Shine work on my roads.
Just before I installed them, I shared what I am going to do with some members on an unrelated topic, and here it comes Alex with his brilliant idea "Why don't you put only the rears first and see what happens!"....... And here we are, Full Shine, Bilstein Sport on the Front, Koni Sport on the Rear on full soft. Have been driving on this setup for the whole weekend, put 500 miles and have to say that works very well for my case. The car is just great on the cement joints! It is so comfortable, that I started increasing the tire pressure again. Currently on 36 PSI Front and 34 PSI Rear and it is just nice. To tell the whole story in few words - first time I had pleasure driving up and down on 101! It is still stiff setup (did not change the springs), but does not bounce anymore. It is almost like.... you hear the impact with the holes, but you do not feel them that much anymore. Another great surprise was the fact that I can't notice difference in handling while driving in a spirited mode. The car handles just like before, but gained so much more comfort. I know it may sound unreal, but it is my experience.........
The question now is ....... shall I keep the Bilsteins in front or shall I put the Konis? I hear people talk about turn-in is better with the stiffer Bilsteins, but how much is that really affected? Guess I will walk the extra mile and put them in and find out what gives/takes. But one thing I would like to suggest to people who are in my situation (live in bad roads area, but still want to enjoy great handling) - you guys can get a set of only *rear* Koni Yellow Sport and replace just those. It is a great improvement in the comfort department while keeping the handling in the way it is now. Well, someone may prove me wrong and say that Konis would not be as great as Bilsteins on the track, but I am talking to those who do not race their cars, but live on the Un-Real Streets of USA







I got mine from http://www.parts4vws.com (dealt with Mike, who was patient enough to talk to me for 30 minutes) and the rears came at about 100$ each......
One thing I noticed, the Konis are as stiff as the Bilsteins early in the morning when it is very cold, for the first couple of miles. Then the ride goes to normal. I never noticed anything like this with the Bilsteins behind, they were just stiff all day long








Hope this will help someone in a search of better ride and great handling .....
peter


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Intersting study you have....I live in NV and our roads our far from great seeing as how 5,000 ppl a month more here(las Vegas) it's a construction town. Odd how you feel it's to stiff and i want my shine setup to be stiffer. I even run falken azenis with 40#front/35#rear.....to each is own. I'm surprised the konis made for a softer ride. The valving must be softer because the rebound is the adjustment on them not compression. Also equally interesting the broad with the stock springs and bilsteins wasnt much softer riding then the shine/bilstein. The rear of my car takes hard road obstacles a lil rough, but such is to be expected. It sucks to have to pay to find what works for your needs because you always loose cash when you sell used stuff. I went through the same thing buying a crappy bilstein BTS kit 1st time around not knowing any better of the dynamics of the VW/MK4 suspension geometry. I say try the konis if you like them so much in the rear......after all it's just money. which is just a few more weeks or days of work


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

My complain is about "bouncy", not stiff







Shine springs are stiff and by not changing them the ride will be the same, but by replacing the shocks, it is not bouncy anymore. The Bilsteins make my car bounce too much. Very fast and frequent ups and downs of the whole car with Bilsteins, compared to slower and very few ups and downs with Konis on the softest rebound........ and my favorite silk-smooth drive is The Strip in LV







You guys really have great roads compare to us.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

thats what i meant sorry....i say switch to the konis then. If my roads where that bad i would have probably stayed stock. I dont really consider the strip part of LV....because unless your going to the strip you never need to take that road in a daily commute unless of course you work there.


----------



## pal (Aug 16, 2000)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

I am glad the Koni's worked out to your liking ... they are an amazing
street sport shock/strut IMHO and the tunability factor makes them a
great buy.
It was a nice idea to try just the rears first as I find that on MK4's, it is
the rears that decide ride comfort more than the fronts. That said, I would
try the Koni's in the front too. I have a feeling you will like the setup
even more.
Nice feedback. Do you mind if I add this to my site *Reviews* 
section?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pal)*

Lunch time was spent under the car, so I pulled out the rear Shine springs and put in the Stock springs. So, we have now Shine 225 Front with Bisltein Sport and Stock rear with Koni Sport on full soft......... The car rides like a Bentley! The stock springs did noticeable difference in ride quality over the Shine rears when I had Bislteins, but the difference is almost twice as much now with Konis! The rear feels really soft, but transformet the whole ride quality completely........
The question now is: Which Rear Spring will lower the car closer to the Shine 180-200 spring and which would be the right compromise between the Shine stiff and the Stock soft rate? I am thinking Rears from 337, as they seem the lowest rears form VW...... Am I on the right track? Is there big difference between the 337 rears and the SofSport rears? ...... Thanks.
To be continued....


----------



## BEAU-SOF (Jan 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

so this setup is ok with you for now???


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (BEAU-SOF)*

Not yet..... it will be perfect when I find a rear spring that is rated in between the Shine rear 180 and the Stock one and it has to be lower than the Stock rear too....... Then I will start experimenting with the rebound of the rears. Once it is close to Shine rear feel, then I will replace the Front Bislteins with the Konis and see what gives/takes...... trying to figure out few things on my own.


----------



## RABIDRABBIT1983 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

LOL call it the hodge podge frankenstien suspension or H.P.F. for short.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (RABIDRABBIT1983)*

neuspeed spoft sport,
or
you can install rubber spacer 1 inch and then clamp them with spring clamps. This will make your rear 17% stronger and lower it about 1/2 inch. You can clamp but then the butt drops to 200 lbs shine level or lower.
BTW the spacers are rectangle so you can do 1.5 or 1 inch! For me I could not find a conpromise so I made my own spacer by cutting Vs into the 2.5 inch spacer and kept using a small hole saw to get the depth at the bottom of the V where I want it. Took all of 1/2 hour a side including installation.
The stock springs are too weak FYI, the Jetta butt will piviot around like err.. stock.
Also the effective applied rate of the shine RSB will be greater, too great. The butt has to be lower and stiffer. I like you just don't the exact amount. 

I should add, that I've been saying shine and koni since the first day I was ever on this or the TDI board. hehe










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 4:59 AM 11-26-2003_


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Lunch time was spent under the car, so I pulled out the rear Shine springs and put in the Stock springs. So, we have now Shine 225 Front with Bisltein Sport and Stock rear with Koni Sport on full soft......... The car rides like a Bentley! The stock springs did noticeable difference in ride quality over the Shine rears when I had Bislteins, but the difference is almost twice as much now with Konis! The rear feels really soft, but transformet the whole ride quality completely........
The question now is: Which Rear Spring will lower the car closer to the Shine 180-200 spring and which would be the right compromise between the Shine stiff and the Stock soft rate? I am thinking Rears from 337, as they seem the lowest rears form VW...... Am I on the right track? Is there big difference between the 337 rears and the SofSport rears? ...... Thanks.
To be continued....

Interesting... I think you should call your system "Shine X-tra Lite" or "Shine Comfort".


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Not yet..... it will be perfect when I find a rear spring that is rated in between the Shine rear 180 and the Stock one and it has to be lower than the Stock rear too....... Then I will start experimenting with the rebound of the rears. Once it is close to Shine rear feel, then I will replace the Front Bislteins with the Konis and see what gives/takes...... trying to figure out few things on my own.

Awsome, I am glad that this setup worked out. This was always my opinion that most of the comfort in our cars is in the rear and softening it will improve the ride a lot and you can still keep the handling with some good rear bar. 
The closest springs I can suggest is Nuespeed Sofsport, they drop 0.5" and are a little softer than Shine. Let us know how the whole thing does. I may also get the Konis for rear and see how does it do! Great write up http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

So, Pyce, got a question for you? You mentioned earlier that going from Shine springs to Stock springs on Bilstein did improve the ride by 30% and reduced the handling by like 70%. Now, on Shine springs going from Bilstein to Koni shocks, how much improvement do you see in the ride and if you feel the performance has suffered any, if at all (maybe percentage-wise)?! 
Finally, do you think it's worth the change if I wanna keep my Nuespeed Sport springs (160 in the rear)? Thnx http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

The situation gets very interesting, at least to me.....
So, before the 337 rear springs (1 pink, 2 green) goes in to replace the stock rear (1 silver, 3 green), we deicide it is time to do some sort of spring thest







Of course, little bit primitive, using a milling machine's head to press down on the spring and lowering it inch by inch. On the bottom side there is a guage to measure the pressure. I understand that the correct measurement would be to first compress the spring to it's operation size, while supporting the several hundreds of pounds from the vehicle, but we did not take this into consideration as time was little and it was just something to do for fun, to get some numbers. So, here are some interesting results:
1. Shine Rear 180 lb spring showed 170 lb after the first inche and 340 lb after the second inch! It was going down in the most linear way it could be. And I think the single digit mistake we have vs what they advertise is more than acceptable for our simple experiemnt. The diameter was 0.468 coating included.
2. Stock Rear (1Silver, 3Green) showed 130 lb the first inch, 270 lb the second and 400 the third inch. The diameter was 0.440 coating included.
3. 337 Rear (1Pink, 2Green) showed 150 lb the first inch, 270 lb the second and 405 the third inch. The diameter was 0.432 coating included.
I will no longer call these springs "progressive", but perhaps "Variable" rate springs.....
Anyway, the interesting part is here. The 337 spring showed more or less the same rates (at least for the first three inches), so, I was expecting to put that spring and have the same stock ride comfort with lowering the rear by about an inch (that is also the difference between the spring's lenght when outside the car - one inch). By the way, the number of coils, dead and active, is exactly the same (337 vs stock), just the 337 spring looks like compressed by an inch more, that's all!................... So, here is the big surpirse (to me) the 337 spring goes in and the ride quality goes south very noticeably! I am almost at Shine level ride quality, read: uncomfortable on cement roads and city crap....
So, at this point (I am still with the Koni on the rear) we have two almost identical springs (in spring's rate), but one is lower than the other (rear only!) and with everything the same - the ride quality goes south with lowering the rear......
so, here are the questions..... is it posible that lowering it this much the shock is working into a different area of it's lenght, where the results are different? Is it possible those shocks are not linear and provide different stiffeness when working lower or higher? 
So, either the 337 spring's rate are raising way up after the third inch (which we did not measure), or perhaps that is why the 337 has different shocks, so to deal with the lowered springs..... but then, the Bilsteins and Konis I have are both "Sport" which everybody says are shorter shaft, so to work great with lowered sptings. And anyway, the 337 spring does not go that low. The rear is the same height like with 180 lb Shine.....
Alex, to answer your question.... I think if you just go Koni on the rear and keep the Shine 180 lb spring, the comfort feel would improve by about 20-30%, it depends which part. You will lose completely the mini-bumps feel that the Bilsteins transfer 100% to your seat, but it will continuw to be a firm ride. I did not notice difference in handling with just exchanging the rear shocks, but again, I do not race the car either. And remember, these are on full soft now.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Interesting! I am not too sure if Koni's are designed for lowered cars. They have two kinds, one with shorter shaft "s" or "sport" and another one with regular. Bilstein has HD and Sport where sport is shorter. Not sure which one you got on that 337 springs! 
Another thing to consider is that there must be a match between shocks/springs, and maybe Koni at softest is not matched well to 337 and may have to dial it higher or something. I think the best of both worlds for your application would be some Sofsports though.
Now, one question I have for you is how much of the comfort do you contribute to rear? I mean you've been changing rear shocks/springs for the last little while without changing the front. So, does front play such a minor role in comfort that just getting the rears right is gonna do the trick? Do you consider the front with Bilstein/Shine to be comfy enough on the streets?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

truth is a damper setting is far more related to unsprung weight than it is to a spring. Especially when you talk about a damper that is only rebound adjustable. Yep, you got it jounce adjustment is needed more on a stiff spring, stiffer the spring the softer the jounce. Rebound is related to unsprung weight. 
Peter: I've been running spring clamped rear springs, so these are like 15% to 20% stiffer than stock 3g/1s Jetta springs and .250" lower. I clamped rubber spacers inbetween coil so the car would not go slammed. I like this setup for performance, the butt no longer waves in the wind as it did stock, and it did with all my cheapo homemade upgrades too. But yes the ride is noticably poor. 
IMO and this is a complete guess, the trailing arms go up too much and when there is hits a bump it tends to yank the chassis backwards before there is any upwards movement of the arm. I base this on the fact that for many months I ran spacers in the rear and the butt was in the air about .250, the spacers yield the same rate change as the clamp as they both isolate one coil. The ride was almost stock with this setup. The problem with this setup is that trail brake oversteer is bad, and the arms tend to self-steer the car as they bounce up and down.
It could also be simple weight transfer, in my case the front is up .250 and now the rear is down .250 , on second thought the heavier the rear the smoother the ride; I should know as I stack bags of rock in the trunk on a regular basis.
So basically I have an uprated spring and I've gone from .250 above stock to .250 below stock, the butt sway is gone in both cases. Up yeilds bad trail brake oversteer as well as tricky self -steer, butt down yeilds a poor ride. 
Here is what I think I should do: put stock spring back in at stock height, up the bar a little and call it done.
I'm thinking of making a homemade adjustable bar by drilling holes every 2 inches and using bolts to attach bar stock rolled steel. If I need more bar, I add more steel, less bar less steel. I can go up in 1/8 increments. 
Now to you if you are going to run the stock spring, you are way over barred. bar rate has an inverse relationship to spring rate, if you drop your spring rate your applied bar is far higher. One more reason I really don't like progresive springs.
My stock rear 3g/1s spring is .440 with 7 and 1/4 coils.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 9:26 PM 11-30-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Just a quick reply as I am busy and no time for long story... Alex, the front Shine/Bilstein is PERFECT!!! Many people said it before, the rear is really way too important for the ride quality than the front. When I have the stock rear spring with Koni, the ride is FANTASTIC! And the car turns in like a Shined car, the problem is, the rear feels so loose and as Oldam said, if brake is appied in the curve, it may become tail-happy. I do not want to try that on the road, but that is the feel I have too. That is why I wanted to go 337 on the rear, so to bring some stifness, and on fact, it works great, handling is back like full shine, BUT again, the comfort went south...... And all this bounciness started when I got the light wheels, so at this point I am going in the garage as we speak and put back the heavy wheels with the S-03 stiff side wall and see what happens........ later.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Lou, do you know which is the shortest VW spring, beside the 337? Thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

337, is about it, don't know about the deaerl eibach. Keep the lighter rims on and try to go very soft on the Koni rear. ron the lower tire pressure that Alex rec. Dunno. The conti contac eco are smooth they grip like steel skateboard wheels but seem to have so good wear!
My ride is really OK, I guess Austin roads are better. I worked 1 year in the bay area at Amdahl, Apple had the Lisa out. Roads were not that bad, but I know CA got some problems now.
I see softsports on sale all the time, and we know the rears are easy to change. My sway bar make it kind of hard to do one side at a time though. I picked up some rolled sheet steel so I'll start on the adjustable RSB DIY soon.
makes you wonder about this 337 performance handling? Myth? from the rear spring and lowered stance one would think so. Do you have the specs on the front 337 spring?
Also does the 337 come with harder rear arm bushings. Might have to pick up a set next time I'm under the car.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 3:10 AM 12-1-2003_


----------



## Al Bob (May 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I have Koni sports and Neuspeed sofsports all around. Not to get on a different topic, but I've been trying to decide what would be a good rebound setting in the rear. I also have stock 15 inch wheels and tires so they are fairly light. Any suggestions? I've noticed some bouncing over pavement undulations on the highway.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Al Bob)*

Lou, I do not have the 337 front spex, but would say that the rear's 337 can almost fully substitute the Shine 180 lb. Same ride height, same nice tight feeling when going through curves. It is really like driving full Shine. I guess 337 owners should just buy fron Shine 225 and fron Bilsteins and that could do a hell of a setup! 
I put the S-03 only on the rear, and it is not much different. Bounces on those stoopid cement bridges on 237, it drives me nuts. Trid all tires pressures, from 40 to 30 PSI and combinations with more front, less rear and viceversa and yes, it improves some but I can't get any near the superb ride I had two days ago with Stock Rear, Koni on the soft and all the rest Shine.........
There must be something here. I will try this now..... will put some massive 1" sort of spacers below the 337 springs, as to raise the rear to stock height, so to see if the height and all your theory is right. If starts riding great again, then perhaps there is something we are neglecting when lowering the rear....... LOL, the car really looks funny. Two different pare of wheels, two pare of springs and two pare of shocks. But hey, had to make sure we do not have osme crazy tire issues here..... 
Al Bob, do not know what to tell you as I have not started yet to play with the rebound. I want to find the right spring first and then I will play with rebound. Everybody says I shoud go Sofsport, but looking at the spring's rate and talking to few people who have them, I guess it may not be the right one, but I guess we have to try it no matter what, so I will try to get SofSport rears and some soft Eibach and see. Those will be the next two steps.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Al Bob)*

Al, id check to see if the Koni are still working? My cheapo TC don't bounce around and my rim/tire combo is heavy. Take tire off, take bottom bolt off shock, push up and down at constant pressure, report back.
Well one more week of driving my lower home made shine rear springs... They don't seem to ride that harsh, but they do seem to transmit more bump noise into the car. I can say the performance is very good, I'll push it more on some back roads today!
337 and better performance? dunno since it is a weaker spring than a stock Jetta. I wonder is that because they are just lower in the rear? In other words, any performance spring in the rear will work so long as the rear sits about .500 lower than the front.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_.......IMO and this is a complete guess, the trailing arms go up too much and when there is hits a bump it tends to yank the chassis backwards before there is any upwards movement of the arm.......

At this point I have no choice but to believe your guess as I can't find anywhere else the reason of the poor quality ride with just lowering from stock to 337........ It would be nice if somebody with coilovers have done lowering and rising of the rear, so to prove your point....
*COILOVERS owners* - anybody of you have tried to set the ride height of your car close to stock and then lower it by 1-1.5 inches? Do you have very different ride quality when doing so? Please, help here, so I do not need to go and buy another set for these experiments.... Thanks


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
At this point I have no choice but to believe your guess as I can't find anywhere else the reason of the poor quality ride with just lowering from stock to 337........ It would be nice if somebody with coilovers have done lowering and rising of the rear, so to prove your point....
*COILOVERS owners* - anybody of you have tried to set the ride height of your car close to stock and then lower it by 1-1.5 inches? Do you have very different ride quality when doing so? Please, help here, so I do not need to go and buy another set for these experiments.... Thanks









Not sure if that makes a difference. I don't have a coilover, but had H&R Cupkit before at 2" drop and then upgraded to Nuespeed Sport at 1.4" drop. The ride is harsher on the current setup, but the cupkit was WAY BOUNCIER. Overall, I like my ride better now, since I rather have stiff suspension than bouncy. 
The cupkit at 2" drop had less spring rate and much softer shocks compared to the Bilsteins. It was very bouncy over everything. My current setup loves speed, going over bumps and highway stuff at anything over 40mph is very nice, however whenever I am in town driving at below 30mph, I feel every single bump on the road, this wasn't the case with cupkit. So, my thinking is that more lowering at rear doesn't necessarily reduce ride comfort and it's more about spring rate and shocks.


_Modified by alexb75 at 2:46 PM 12-1-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

I think the question is does making the back lower than the front increase noise and create ride problems, not does lowering the whole car do the same.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I think the question is does making the back lower than the front increase noise and create ride problems, not does lowering the whole car do the same.

Oh ok, I thought the question was just lowering the rears.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

FOUND the problem!








The car was seating on the shock's bump stops! Actually, was not just seating, more than that, those bump stops were compressed by about one inch!!! So, my spring rates were who knows what and every time I hit the bump...... now it makes sense all the bounciness! Very fast raising spring rate and always well over what the spring's rate is! Damn it....
And this is the same ride height as Shine 180 lb spring, which makes me think the Shine actually may work great, but it is on the bump stops all the time!








Now we cut about one inch from the bum stops, so it just touches the shocks, but it is not pre-compressed and Hello Great Stock ride quality!








Tomorrow I am going back to full Shine to see what happens with no compressed bump stops. It should work great.......
Why nobody told me those bump stops are ALREADY pre-loading when you go one inch lower than stock? Can you imagine the poor guys driving slammed cars? Damn..... so much money for shocks and springs and combinations and the problem was on some stupid bump stops. Duh!


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I'll expose my ignorance here, but what the freak are the "shock's bump stops"? 
At the top of the rear spring I have found a flanged rubber cup that sits in the top spring coil (the small diameter coil) and fits the hemispherical bump on the bottom of the chassis in order to locat/seat the top of the spring. 
But I have seen nothing that could interfere with the rear shock's motion.
What am I missing? (Golf IV chassis)


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_FOUND the problem!








Why nobody told me those bump stops are ALREADY pre-loading when you go one inch lower than stock? Can you imagine the poor guys driving slammed cars? Damn..... so much money for shocks and springs and combinations and the problem was on some stupid bump stops. Duh!

I think people are slowly realizing that their Mk4 cars are riding on bump-stops when lowered 1" or more... probably due to the fact that vendors didn't tell them.











_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 2:38 PM 12-2-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Cadenza_7o)*

*THAT IS WHY I AM SO ANGRY!!!! BECAUSE NO SHOCK SELLER, NEITHER SPRING SELLER TELLS THE WHOLE STORY IN THE WAY IT IS!!! 
AND LET ME GO WITH THESE CAPS HERE, BECAUSE I AM REALLY MAD WHY A MANUFACTURER LIKE KONI OR BILSTEIN DOES NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING LIKE THIS IN THE BOX, TO TELL PEOPLE THAT LOWERING EVEN BY ONE INCH WILL PUT THEM ON THE BUMP STOPS BIG TIME!!!
AND THEN WHY SPRINGS MANUFACTURER DO NOT SAY A JACK ABOUT THIS TOO? WHERE IS THE LINE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS WHEN YOU GET H&R SPRINGS, SHINE SPRINGS, NEUSPEED SPRINGS AND YOU NAME IT - THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD BUY SHORTER BUMP STOPS ON YOUR SHOCKS, OR YOU SHOULD CUT THEM, OTHERWISE YOU WILL RIDE ON YOUR BUMP STOPS? WHERE ARE THOSE LINES THAT SAY SO?????
WHERE ARE YOU MANUFACTURERS? WHERE ARE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?? SELLING STUFF THAT SAYS "SPORT" SO IT IS DESIGNED TO GO WIT LOWER SPRING....... YEAH, RIGHT, AND SEATING ON THE STOCK BUMP STOPS, SO EVERYTHING GOES SOUTH!* 
Anyone of you guys here, seen such instructions that say if you go lower than one inch...actually if you go lower even with less, with my product, then you have to cut the bump stops, or use different shorter ones? 
Sorry for the vent and everything, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that no one said officially, on piece of paper, in instructions with the products, anything about this.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

NB, is the part that seats between the upper rod side (where it gets bolted to the car's body) and the black hollow part that goes over the shock's body to cover the rod..... let me see if I can find a picture for you.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

That's incredible. I have Nuespeed with 1.4" drop and they never told me to cut the bumpstops or anything, neither in the Bilstein Sport instructions! I know the Bilstein Sport struts comes with its own bumpstops and I didn't even use the oem ones, but not sure about the rear.
Here's a diagram BTW, tell us which one did u cut.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Take out the whole rear shock, take out the #3 (protective tube), that is the part that does not allow you to SEE what is going on there...... put everything back together, mount it in the car and you will see part #4 (stop buffer) that seats on top of the shock!!! In my car (337 springs) not only seats, but it is compressed by one inch! That thing (#4) is stiff, and the more you compress it, the stiffer it is! Took one inch off it, and now when I seat in the car, just touches the top of the shock, so it is not pre-loaded, and already made hell of a difference in ride quality! Tomorrow I am going back to Shine and will take off the whole buffer, just to see what I would gain in ride quality with Shine linear spring......


_Modified by pyce at 3:18 PM 12-2-2003_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I am confused, which one did you cut? #3 or #4 or both? How much of a difference did it make? Are we talking about the whole thing on Koni shocks or Bilstein?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

yeah, I see what you mean, with the cover on, you would never know that the sucker is on the stop!, I'll have to check mine, but mine is only .225 down, you would not think it was on the stop already?
Hey sell me your 337 rear springs for cheap,


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Alex, sorry, I made a mistake and went to edit, so if you read the post again it will make sense..... I cut number #4, the BUFFER, but be careful when you cut it, because you may want to put back the COVER (#3)......
This is Loni Sport (Yellow) and I have to yet see what will happen with the Bislteins, but it may be the same thing, as the buffers are the same (stock ones) and I did not notice difference in shock's body lenght when I was exchanging them last week......
Oldman, those 337 springs belong to a freind and I have to return them to him. Actually, I will know more when I put back the Shine springs. If it works great (I expect) then I will stick with it ..... if not, then I will look for SofSport or Eibach..... Now that I know what gives me the bouncy ride, I guess we have to try all the springs again, as to know what they really give.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Interesting. I am wondering if the 337 bumpstops are any different than ours! Will check that out some time at the dealer. I know this for a fact though, when they install their sport springs at the dealership (0.8-1.0" drop) they never cut the bumpstops either








BTW, did u cut it at the bottom? Is it easy to cut?


_Modified by alexb75 at 3:35 PM 12-2-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

well if the ride can be fixed I can just clamp a coil and this will drop the butt down .500 and up the spring like 20%! This would be the cheapest shine lite kit yet, front springs set of rubber spacers, rear springs: set of spring clamps! = 90% suspension.
Like I said the ride is poorer on my car but it was by no means what you have been saying. I would suspect my TC have a slightly shorter body. Noise is higher but we are talking about a spring in my case upto 20% stiffer.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Yes, at the bottom side! You want the top to be original, so it can fit in the part #5!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Oldman, go get Mike, IIRC he is on 200 lb rear Shine and HDs ...... see if you guys want to see what is the situation in there! I do not have HDs, so someone else has to see about those..... I can try the Bisltein Sports tomorrow.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

oh so you have sports, they are built to take a 1" drop. I would think the body IS shorter by 1". Yeah, I can look at Mike's setup, he has 200 lbs and HD in the rear. I did not help with the install. I just am wondering how much play is there as we are not talking big drops here. Like I'm sure when I get a full passanger load the butt is going down more the .5, that would mean theat the suspension is already on the bump stop? Makes no sense to limit travel that much.
OK to you how much rear drop are we talking about with the 337 spring? How "hard" onto the bump stop were they?


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

(oooopsie







) dopey me threwd doz succas out. 
holyschitt, jes relized I'm ridin widout bump stops!!
(and I really, really, wanted to support Pyce and corroborate his butt jiggly) Shucks.
Sarry bout dat Pyce.
If it's any consolation, lately, I hit drive way aprons and speed bumps pretty hard, and I have yet to experience any kind of bottoming out. 


_Modified by NewbieBaby at 12:33 AM 12-3-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (NewbieBaby)*

none that you know, but I've seen many blown out shocks from guys that never bottom their car..


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (NewbieBaby)*

Maybe that is why I have been complaining about bouncy ride and many people did not know what I am talking about ..... because many people do not have the Buffer Stops on their shocks! Because maybe their installer knew to either cut them, or eliminate them or perhaps replace them with shorter ones....... and I did not know that!
Oldman, the 337 rears make the car seats about 2-3 millimeters higher than Shine 180 lb rear! I would call it close enough. So, with me in the car, the left Buffer Stop is alreay compressed by one inch! I basically never experienced the true spring rate - always had something more than that, even when standing still. So, by cutting one inch (I will give you the exact numebr later), now the Buffer Stop barely touches the top of the shock when I am in..... so, I did not elliminate it completely, just eliminated the one inch per-load..... and it is already HUGE improvement towards great comfort!


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I would like to hear more of your observation on the change in the ride quality once you've cut all the bump-stops. I already have Bilstein HDs and am interested in getting Shine springs, at least for the front.
Pyce, are your wheels 16" or 17"?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Cadenza_7o)*

Cadenza, on 16"...... and right now (just to make it even more interesting







) with soft Energy tire on 16x7 in the front and stiff S-03 on 16x6.5 on the rear. Looking forward to go home and cut the whole thing.....actually I will just take it out and replace with something very short, so we can still keep the shock cover in place as now is dirty season, we do not want all sorts of dirt to go on that shaft.....


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

Perhaps bottoming is not, exclusively, what blows out shocks?


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (NewbieBaby)*

I would say it make up 50% of the early damper deaths.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Cadenza, on 16"...... and right now (just to make it even more interesting







) with soft Energy tire on 16x7 in the front and stiff S-03 on 16x6.5 on the rear. Looking forward to go home and cut the whole thing.....actually I will just take it out and replace with something very short, so we can still keep the shock cover in place as now is dirty season, we do not want all sorts of dirt to go on that shaft.....

Good deal... I would have done Shine if I had 16" rims, especially lightweight 16"x7.5". The ride is already bumpy (but tolerable) with OEM 17" Daytonas riding on Bilstein HD & stock springs from the Sport package. 
I had 2 of my tires replaced early so I was running 2 Sumitomo HTR+ and 2 OEM Michelin Pilot. Didn't like the handling. It's much better now with Sumitomo HTR+ on 4 corners.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Maybe that is why I have been complaining about bouncy ride and many people did not know what I am talking about ..... because many people do not have the Buffer Stops on their shocks! Because maybe their installer knew to either cut them, or eliminate them or perhaps replace them with shorter ones....... and I did not know that!

Peter, that makes perfect sense to me. I had Shine do the install on my B4, and because my rear suspension uses their coil-over sleeves, 2.5" springs (250#) and HDs, there was no room for a spongy bump-stop -- so none was installed! Let us know how the ride is with the shortened bump-stop and the full Shine suspension. You may have come up with a very simple solution that will help a lot of folks out there http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








*edit - spelling


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 11:38 AM 12-3-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (f1forkvr6)*

Chris, this is pure fun! Going out with the knife and modifying your spring's rate "live", LOL







Taking out 5 mm. per side and then try the car..... then another 5 mm. and try again. and every time gets better and better! It is so great when you do small changes and feel great difference at the same time! By the end of the day I will take the whole buffers out, so to see how much the shocks actually compress, therefore to see how much those buffers were compressing, then get a new bumper and measure the rate of it when compressed by the same length, so to calculate what kind of progressive rates this adds to the springs' rate. 
By the way, the Konis (rear only!) are on full turn from soft towards firm and it does actually do a lot in turn-in! The car is very flat and cornering is like someone is holding the whole rear planted to the ground! Very nice sensation and comfort is still way better than anything before! It works really great with the Shine bar and Shine front! boy, this is coming one nice setup...... More to follow tonight. Tomorrow planting back the Shine rear.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

An update here..... last night I end up removing 3" from that buffer (in total) and that is about where it stopped making difference in comfort over the bouncy highway.......... it was HELLO STOCK RIDE QUALITY







This morning woke up early and drove through some of my favorite horrible roads and ..... and I have the feeling they fixed all of them over the night! And keep in mind, my Konis are adjusted half way between full soft and full stiff now, and I still have the greatest ride I ever had with this car! Well, probably will be slightly softer if it was stock all around, but I am not touching that Shine front, no way! Yet, the thing turns in like dream and rides like beautiful comfy compact sedan.......
At this point I am convinced that these buffers are the real reason for my poor ride, so I think it is time to make a new topic and to tell the rest of the guy who (like me) did not know about the real enemy above our shocks!







Let me go do some sketches.......
I will enjoy my beautiful ride for today, but tomorrow I promise to put back the Shine 180 springs and see then!
Oh, and by the way, put the tire pressure back to 36 PSI and still rides like dream, which makes me think I may actually go back to full 40 like I always had it before


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Interesting, but I am a bit confused. If you've lowered the car 0.8" (337), why should you cut the buffer 3" then? Does that mean the stock car is sitting on the bumpstops as well? What do you suggest I should cut with Nuespeed Sport 1.4" drop?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Alex..... maybe after reading all the posts together does not make sense anymore, but I will try to recap again..... With 337 rear Springs the stock buffer stops are not only touching, but are PRE-LOADED. Means, with me seating in the car, the buffers are already compressed by certain amount! So, we cut about 1" first, this way now the buffers were NOT pre-loaded with me in the car, but just touching! Comfort improved noticeably immediately, because those buffers are HARD! ..... At this point, I still have bad comfort on big bumps, and it make sense, as when the shock goes up, it compresses the buffer that remains there. That buffer is quiet soft in the first part (first 1" we cut), but then it get really hard above, so it is really progressive thing, to a point that after couple of inches of compression it stops compressing at all and it is like steel! So, I kept cutting, this way I give more room for the shocks to go up during big bumps, without touching the buffers at all! So, after removing 3" total buffer, I now have about 2" of shock travel WITHOUT touching the remaining of the buffer, and this of course, driving normally, not pushing in curves. I will put some plastic rings on the shaft today and see how much real travel I have in normal driving condition, and how much when pushing in corners...... 
Hope it makes sense..... if not, I ma doing some 3D models today and then it will be easier to understand


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

GREAT! Thanks for doing all that and the explanation. I guess if the buffer was not progressive like that you didn't have to cut it all that much. I will look into if that buffer is different for 337 or not! I beleive the best thing would be to get a hold of some R32 buffers since those are more than an inch lower (although different rear suspension).
Cheers for all the work!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Alex, do not forget the 337 has different shock! It may have shorter body, I do not know, never seen one ......


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, do not forget the 337 has different shock! It may have shorter body, I do not know, never seen one ......

I've seen them, didn't measure them but they looked similar and very close to Eibach Prokit. I have Bilstein sport so it's a shorter one, but not sure if that makes a difference in this case!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Well, what I can suggest in your case is to go and take out the shock, take out the black plastic cover, so you can SEE where you buffers are, but I will not be surprise if you are in even worse situation than me ..... but tell you what, hold it there and do not waste your time. I have the Bilstein Sports too, so I will go tonight and compare just the shock body between the two, so we will know where the buffer is even without installing it.....


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Pyce, let see if I understood you correctly....
- You're using Shine (F) springs w/Bilstein & 337 (R) springs w/Konis, which lower the rear-end about 0.8"... correct?
- With the suspension loaded, you said the rear shock bodies compress the bump-stops about 1.0"... correct? 
- You cut ~1.5" from each side to give ~2" of free travel... correct?
- Now switch gear to a loaded *"stock suspension":* wouldn't this mean that the rear shock bodies are _very close_ to contact with the bump-stops or maybe even touching them already??? 
If this is true, I will be cutting the bump-stops on my NB, which is riding on stock springs from the Sport package and Bilstein HDs. These dampers are stiff enough already. What do you think??
Besides, I don't understand the point of using bump-stops as a component of the suspension dynamics. Their function is to provide a cushion when the car bottoms out. 


_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 1:41 PM 12-4-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_
- You cut ~1.5" from each side to give ~2" of free travel... correct?


Cut about 3" to give about 2" of travel!
On a stock car have no idea, but guess it will be very close to touch when the car is parked. I will find out soon ....
Anyway, it is important part of the suspension, because it creates a very progressive sort of spring, so when you do some extreme cornering, it starts working, so it helps having very high spring rate. The thing is, it was designed for the stock height spring, stock shock! Now that we go aftermarket shocks and springs, it works big time against our comfort. So, when we go with 160 lb spring, we are actually having maybe 250 spring by just seating in the car.....and then you hit a bump and the total spring rate skyrockets and that is what I felt all the time, like riding on 800 lb springs on the ugly roads around here....
So, to recap, we need completely different (shorter and maybe way softer) buffers when lowering. No matter what everybody says, I really think it is a bad idea to have the excessive weight of the car (over a bump) to suddenly seats on top of the shocks, instead of the spring. And this is exactly what happens now with our lowered in the rear cars.... at least with Koni Yellows for the moment.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_So, to recap, we need completely different (shorter and maybe way softer) buffers when lowering.

I smell an opportunity for a new suspension product ...









If we start seeing these things, we'll all know where the idea came from http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
So, to recap, we need completely different (shorter and maybe way softer) buffers when lowering. No matter what everybody says, I really think it is a bad idea to have the excessive weight of the car (over a bump) to suddenly seats on top of the shocks, instead of the spring. And this is exactly what happens now with our lowered in the rear cars.... at least with Koni Yellows for the moment.

*Amazing revelation:* 337 comes with different bumpstop/buffer
Ok, I was just as the dealer checking this out and found out our cars come with TWO different rear bumpstops. The stock one is part# 1J0 512 131 *B*, but there's another bumpstop which on the part description says "FOR SPORT SUSPENSION" and the part# is 1J0 512 131 *C* . GTI 337, 20ed and cars ordered with factory sport suspension have this other bumpstops. I assume it's shorter, but could not compare them since the dealer had none of them in stock. So, here's the solution now! 
It's amazing no one has EVER found this out, specially tuners out there. This is fairly easy to find out. I love vortex for these reasons that *WE* consumers can help each other out and we can probably do as good if not better of a job in designing a suspension than the tuners out there







.
I will change my bumpstop anytime I can and will report if it changes anything. Anyone can take a look at the two, please let us know what's the exact difference. 

_Modified by alexb75 at 3:49 PM 12-4-2003_

_Modified by alexb75 at 3:50 PM 12-4-2003_


_Modified by alexb75 at 4:18 PM 12-4-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

What are you talking about Alex, we all know every manufacture and ever sport shop has highly qualified suspension engineers, or at least knowledgeable reps!







The whole idea that basic information has to gained from the internet with customers doing the R&D is just plain ludicrous in the extreme. We ALL just must have missed this step in the detailed instructions








Anybody with TC for Sports Suspension? I wonder if there are different instructions or if the damper body is shorter on them?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_What are you talking about Alex, we all know every manufacture and ever sport shop has highly qualified suspension engineers, or at least knowledgeable reps!







The whole idea that basic information has to gained from the internet with customers doing the R&D is just plain ludicrous in the extreme. We ALL just must have missed this step in the detailed instructions










LOL








Ofcourse. We here must do the R&D, that's the beaty of the internet, it's FREE! Why companies should spend money on R&D where it can be found for free on vortex!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, did you guys check Mike's car? It will be important to see what happens with the HDs vs the Sports, because if people are right about the HD not being good for lowering, then his situation could be even worse in his case......


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

So, Pyce maybe you wanna try the "C" version of the buffer, it'd be perfect for you since you're using the 337 springs. BTW, what year's your car and did it have the factory sports suspension?


----------



## sjoback (Feb 3, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

I've never taken apart the suspension on my jetta before, but is the idea that the rear suspension uses the bumpstops to help out the relatively weak shocks in the back? from the bentely illustration, it looks like the bumpstop takes up the whole shaft length for the rear. Is that the case with the actual parts? 
if so, would cutting the bumpstops be too hard on the rear shocks? causing them to wear out prematurely?
or does a stock setup have some free travel, and the bumpstops become an issue only when the car is lowered?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

Alex, no sport suspension here, and I am not purchasing any 337 buffers before I see them. Just the fact that they are different part number does not mean they will work well. They may actually be STIFFER than what I have stock, because maybe that is the way VW want us to feel the "sportiness" of their otherwise similar rate springs! ....... I rather waste the whole buffer and relay 100% on the springs, so I know the rates I have and I do not have unexpected bottoming on those buffers. I will try to go to the dealer and see if they have those buffers and to compare them thought.......
sjoback - I think that is more or less the concept, yeah, to have these buffers NOT touching the shocks, have like maybe an inch of clearance above, so you have nice and comfy ride on your soft springs and hopeless shocks ..... and then when you go in curve, the car progressively seats on those buffers, so it leans less. Also, it helps to add some spring rates the more vertical move you have. The problem is, from the simple calculation I am having looking at the parts, that at certain point (if let's say you jump from a curb), once you land there, you have the whole extra weight smashing those buffers to a point that they are fully compressed BEFORE the springs have run out of compression! So, what happens, the body of the shocks and the bolts below take majority of the hit and something tells me that is not so good..... But of course, we have to experiment as to be sure and I have a set of stock shocks too, so I will compare those as well ...... later.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (sjoback)*

It's kind of a shortcut method to avoid damage and _"add performance'_








Check this out:
Full article: http://www.sportcompactcarweb....300zx/
Points pertinent to this discussion:
*"To prevent a harsh, chassis-unsettling jolt when bottoming out; the shocks have a trick microcellular urethane bumpstop. This soft material is shaped to provide a controlled progressive stop to the end of the wheel's travel."*
If you get the lengths wrong, and/or the density wrong, ride and handling will suffer.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, no sport suspension here, and I am not purchasing any 337 buffers before I see them. Just the fact that they are different part number does not mean they will work well. They may actually be STIFFER than what I have stock, because maybe that is the way VW want us to feel the "sportiness" of their otherwise similar rate springs! ....... I rather waste the whole buffer and relay 100% on the springs, so I know the rates I have and I do not have unexpected bottoming on those buffers. I will try to go to the dealer and see if they have those buffers and to compare them thought.......


Well, I don't think it's stiffer. I've been in a 20ed and 337 cars, on 18 inch wheels and stiff tires they ride ok. It doesn't only come on 337 but also on sport suspensions. I will definately try to take a look at them and see if they're shorter. If they are, then it would be the perfect solution for most people with moderate lowered springs.


----------



## racerxsf (Jan 30, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

So....how are the Shine springs? Did you change back to the Bilsteins too, or did you keep the Konis? Excellent post Pyce...thanks for the scientific study, and sorry about the result...but it will really help a bunch of people avoid the same mistake or overlook by the spring/shock manufactures. But what's the end of the story here? Is the stock Shine kit front and rear as comfortable as the front Shine and rear 337 Konis with cut bumpstops? Keep those spring compressors working!!! We're waiting


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (racerxsf)*

I'm working on my DIY adjustable bar so I had a little time to measure things.
Bils. TC plain are 15 and 7/16 from center of lower bolt hole to top of shock. The jounce damper is 4 and 7/8 of which 1 inch is easy and rest is hard to compress.
My loaded suspension with DIY shine rear springs has about 1.5 inches before the shock top hits the damper. At that point the rear trailing arm is about 3 inches above the pick centerline on the car. I did the measurements without wheels and preloaded the suspension with a jack, so there is slightly less weight on the rear due to the slight inline toward the front.
Conclusion: either my preload is real bad, or there is something wrong with the Koni and Bils sport lengt. As it looks like it would be near imposible to compress my jounce damper 1". which would be 3 inches up on jounce from static.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 7:36 PM 12-6-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

Guys, I am so busy, but the experiments will continue next week. I will measure the shocks I have tomorrow and post data. Will measure my biffers too.......
Oldman, define please Shine DIY rear springs? How tall are they? The difference between my stock springs and the 337 is way more than 0,8" or even 1"...... the car seems to be seating lower even than Shine 180 lb. It looks more like Shine with 200 lb.! I suspect your springs are too tall, therefore you have 1.5" to the buffer..... I am not kidding, my buffers were compressed! You have to find a way to check Mike's car! Otherwise we will never have confirmation as I do not have HDs, neither 200 lb springs on the rear (which are shorter by little).......
Yes, I am not in a rush now as the ride got to almost stock comfort and the car is so enjoyable to drive again, so I do not feel like rushing with the changes







I feel like they have fixed all the streets here overnight! LOL







Shine springs are going in on Monday and Konis go on full soft, so I can compare to what is without buffers to what used to be with the buffers. All of you have a nice weekend.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

stock rear springs with clamps and spacers, they are .200 lower than stock. I'd go lower but I'm worried about the springs falling out.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, you are still too high...I mean, your drop when all is done is not like the Shine drop, neither the 337 and therefore I believe you have that inch ot inch and a half to the buffers. People say the 337 lowers 0.8" and the Shine does not lower, but now that I had the stock springs inside for few days and then again those two, I can tell the drop in both cases is considerably more than the claims! The 337 almost look like H&R Sports on the rear. The Shine is slightly lower, I am talking about 1-2 millimeters only.......
Anyway, got two shocks here with me (the third is on the car) on the desk. I think just another metropolitan myth is going to fall right now







Everybody knows those Bisltein Sports are designed for "lowering" springs, right? Well, at this point, we expect that the body of the shock will be "shorter" or the relative strock will be "shorter" (or actually the best would be combinaiton of both). Well, check this out:
1. Stock shock: Distance from center of lower bolt hole to the top of the chock's body is 15" 14/16 ( about 404 mm) ...... The full strock (fully compressed to fully extended) is 9" 1/4 (about 235 mm).....
2. Bisltein Sport shock: Distance from center of lower bolt hole to the top of the shock's body is 15" 3/8 (about 391 mm)...... the full strock is 8" 3/4 (about 223 mm) ....
So, the strock is about 1/2" shorter and the body is another 1/2" shorter, but that is all you get!!! At this point I am ready to bet that everybody who has the Sports with lowering springs is on the buffers big time! The way I see it, the body is way too long for a product that had been designed to go with lowering springs. Miserable 1/2" is nothing when you thinka bout folks riding on 2-3" lower cars. Yes, the shaft is shorter but it is not part of the equation in this experiemnt. Shorter shaft means only that the shock will not work around the bottom side of it's body. But anyway, we are on the buffers before we get any close to the shock's internal bump stops! 
Oldman, funny enough, looks like the TC has the same body like the Sport! Hey, you can change the sticker and sell the TC for Sports, make some money and get a real Shine








Later guys....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_So, the strock is about 1/2" shorter and the body is another 1/2" shorter, but that is all you get!!! At this point I am ready to bet that everybody who has the Sports with lowering springs is on the buffers big time! The way I see it, the body is way too long for a product that had been designed to go with lowering springs. Miserable 1/2" is nothing when you thinka bout folks riding on 2-3" lower cars. Yes, the shaft is shorter but it is not part of the equation in this experiemnt. Shorter shaft means only that the shock will not work around the bottom side of it's body. But anyway, we are on the buffers before we get any close to the shock's internal bump stops! 


I've talked to Bilstein before I got my suspension. He said the sport is designed for 1" drop, but would be "OK" upto 1.5" but for sure not for more.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Alex, that is big news for me, because from this same forums here I have been reading for couple of years now that the HDs are ok for up to 1", but if you want to lower more, then Sports are the way to go..... And I read this from people who also spent time on the phone with Bilstein ( I calle dthem too, but the answer the lady gave me was so unprofessional, I am not even including it here)....... But let's say you are right and what they told you is correct......then, why do sellers sell the Sports to go with let's say H&R Race springs that lower beyond 1.5" (about 2" to be more precise)? And what about those other "you name it" springs that lower even beyond that? ......... Something's not quiet right here, but I do not know what.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I got the car on the road and took pictures I can't really measure the space (no dust cover, it is about 1.2 tp 1.5 inches static. drop is .20. Thus there should be about 1.4 minimal drop before my suspension hits the buffer bone stock. someting must be up with your buffers, or your shock cup on top. I've included my buffer measurement above. The is about 3 inches from my tire to the well lip not all of which is vertical. the fender lip is max 27.5 above the road. I have pictures but no server to host. Well I could put it under my student account..
Don't know. Dick Shine should be contacted IMO.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_......Thus there should be about 1.4 minimal drop before my suspension hits the buffer bone stock. someting must be up with your buffers, or your shock cup on top.......

Well, think about a spring that lowers the car 1.5" static and then you seat in the car too and there you have it! Remember, I am talking 337 rear springs, not Shine, but the drop looks similar, so I expect similar results when I put them back this week.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

right so please measure the hight to the fender lip, the spring must be like 1.2 to 1.4 down! I know it looks low, but WOW. I think I could just clamp my stock rear springs with no spacer that would put it down .500 to .600. BTW the clamped springs are STIFF, my car does not move when I sit in it. I thought for sure there were on the buffers. Hey just one more cheap mod, $7.00 spring clamps for shine suspension...


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, that is big news for me, because from this same forums here I have been reading for couple of years now that the HDs are ok for up to 1", but if you want to lower more, then Sports are the way to go..... And I read this from people who also spent time on the phone with Bilstein ( I calle dthem too, but the answer the lady gave me was so unprofessional, I am not even including it here)....... But let's say you are right and what they told you is correct......then, why do sellers sell the Sports to go with let's say H&R Race springs that lower beyond 1.5" (about 2" to be more precise)? And what about those other "you name it" springs that lower even beyond that? ......... Something's not quiet right here, but I do not know what.

Well, I also talked to a "lady" and she only knew what was in front of her on paper. I then had to call quite a few times to talk to an engineer and go through quite a few people to do so. He told me, HD is for stock height upto 0.5" drop, Sport is for lowered upto 1.5" for optimum operation. If you lower more, it'd still work but at a much less efficient point and it would be at the bumpstops much more frequently. Not sure what would be a perfect match for H&R race, but the closest would be sports, right?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Update - I have also been talking to Greg in Neuspeed about this. This was his inital response:
"Aaron [the engineer] does not recommend cutting the factory bump stop because it allows the beam axle to rotate further than its original design. This is not a severe problem, but it can lead to the beam axle striking the exhaust under full compression. And, when using a monotube rear shock like the Bilsteins, excessive suspension travel in the compression stroke may result in internal damage to the shock. However, as long as you are aware of this risk, you can trim the bumpstop on your car in small increments until you are satisfied with the ride comfort level."
Now after emailing back and forth a few times, he's going to get the "C" version of the bumpstop and to do a compression test on it and compare it to the "B" version. I will report on the outcome of that. We may finally get something productive out of this! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Something told me to check this section today, and I find this thread. Very interesting.
Anyway, I got under and checked tonight. Not much travel. There was slightly less then 2/3" of travel between the bump stop and the shock, not nearly enough IMO.
Car details:
01' GTI
Shine springs 225/200
Bilstein HD shocks
Shine swaybar sitting somewhere in the garage
15" w/ Yokohama 205/60
As with alot of Shine kits, it's a firm and bouncy ride, very annoying on crappy roads, such as most in NJ (plus snow all over doesn't help). So I was thinking of going back to stock springs with the HD shocks for a softer ride as this is my daily driver.
So since I'm under there, I might as well cut, whats the worse that can happen, I have to get new bump stops?
I wanted to keep the shock cover, so looking at the bump stop if you cut right under the ridge where the shock cover goes on, you will cut of a 7/8". I went a little overboard and decided to cut above that ridge. With a little muscle and some twisting the shock cover fit back over the hump nice a tight. Total I cut off was about 1 1/8" of the bump stop, which gives me around 2" of shock travel total.
I took some pics so everyone can get a better visual. ****Pop-up warning***
http://captainoblivious.tripod....html


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Update - I have also been talking to Greg in Neuspeed about this. This was his inital response:
"... And, when using a monotube rear shock like the Bilsteins, excessive suspension travel in the compression stroke may result in internal damage to the shock. ... 

Unless the shock compresses all the way and hits the internal stop, I don't see the problem with that (that problem happening). Cutting away 1/2" to even 1 1/2" from the bump stops will not give enough travel to cause the internal bump stop to hit, at least on the Bilstein HD's.

_edit - had a few measurements messed up and need to correct them, also I have to correct the one picture in the link as the 3/4" was really 7/8"_


_Modified by captainoblivious at 4:08 PM 12-9-2003_


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

hey captain...
Did you take it for a spin? How's the comfort level now... and handling?


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Cadenza_7o)*

Agh! Knew I forgot something in there last night
















Well unfortunately, my travels managed to put me on a few of nicer roads around me. But here is what I've noticed so far (more time will confirm more things):

- Large bumps and potholes are better. You can tell the rear suspension can compress more. It's kinda wierd that no one thought of this prior. Thinking back on all the bounces, it did feel like it was hitting the bump stop. But I guess most of us dismissed that thought as the cover prevented us from knowing how little suspension there really was.
- That jarring ride that brings out every rattle while you drive on snow covered roads is still there.
- Regular handling was not affected on my car as I had some travel before it hit, so on the smoother roads in bad weather I wasn't pushing the car at.


_Modified by captainoblivious at 4:27 PM 12-9-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

looks like shine should be selling sports shocks for the rear eh?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

Another update here..... The Shine Rear springs are in again, the Konis are now back to full soft, but with NO buffers at all. It is little bit firmer than the 337, but it is way nicer than it had always been on Shine springs. The problem is that it had been raining for the last two days, so I put more than 200 miles but always on wet roads and we all know how wet roads tend to smoothen the ride little bit, so I am waiting for everything to dry, so to make some conclusions. Anyway, took some measurements, but forgot the paper at home, so I will post them tonight. what I remember is that the Koni Sports (Yellow) have body length exactly the same as the Stock shock. When the car seats on the 337 springs, the shock's rod is inside by exactly 5", so it is working around 2/5 and 3/5 of it's length. Also, the Shine 180 Rear Springs lifted up the rear little bit (numbers later). The shock's buffers, would be (if I did not cut them) about 1/4" above (not touching) the shock's top surface, but they are not there at the moment








The very interesting feel I have is that the Shine Rears are really very important in the handling department (more than what I thought). Hell of a difference (in better) compare to the 337 springs. And keep in mind we put the shocks back to full soft for the Shine (from 50% stiff with the 337). This whole thing was really produced to work together and you can feel that after exchanging few parts that do not belong there......
Captain, I am glad you are getting similar results, so we know I am not dreaming here.....

_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_
- Large bumps and potholes are better. You can tell the rear suspension can compress more....Thinking back on all the bounces, it did feel like it was hitting the bump stop. But I guess most of us dismissed that thought as the cover prevented us from knowing how little suspension there really was.


Exactly my feelings! And now you said it very well, I also always felt like, exactly, hitting some sort of bump stops, but I always dismiss it and gave the "credits" to the stiff Shine springs, which are not the cause.... Duh, an so many people had no idea what I am talking about because maybe they do not have those buffers, so their rides are way better...

_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_
- That jarring ride that brings out every rattle while you drive on snow covered roads is still there.... 

Now, the jarring ride that brings out every rattle (again, well said!) is the other "bad" thing that I (again) thought is coming from the Shine springs, but it is actually where the Bilstein Shock kicks in! Changing just the rears with Koni Yellows put on full soft and the whole description you gave almost disappears! I would not say completely, but almost. The Buffers are the factor number one in the comfort department for this setup! The Bilsteins are the factor two, close call......

_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_
- Regular handling was not affected on my car ....

I can't notice difference either, but again, I am not racing, just regular driving with some spirit into it from time to time. And have not touched the front yet...... Later will post some numbers.


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Too bad you're not in NJ. I had a friend of mine who lives in OH, (saw him over thanksgiving) drive my car. He thought the car was nearly flat, and drove just as nice as his unmodified passat. It makes me wonder if I'm crazy, you're anal, or my suspension has something fundamentally different than yours.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Interesting experiments again. However, I personally do not think removing the whole buffer is a very good idea. Logically if the stock ride is fine (which we all believe it is), then lowering the rear by X inches can be compensated by cutting the buffer X inches too. I talked to Eibach too, they also do not recommend cutting the buffer on Golf/Jetta/GTI, but do recommend it for Passat and Beetle?!
Here's another explanation about these buffer and their role:
_"When you hit a bump in the road, a specific value of force is transferred into the suspension. With the bump stop in place (at its original length) you have the spring, the compression resistance of the shock, and the compression resistance of the bump stop all absorbing that force. As a result, the total amount of suspension travel will be limited based on all three components working together.

The bumpstop has its own rate of compression. Think of it like a supplemental spring. Even though the chassis touches the bump stop, it does not prevent the chassis from continuing to move. It just slows the rate of compression of the rear suspension by absorbing force. Because the bumpstop is elastic, it will spring back to its original shape and release most of the force that it temporarily stored. 

Both the spring and the bump stop are elastic. They will release most of their stored energy by rebounding back to their original length. It's up to the shock absorber to "absorb" that kinetic energy and convert it into heat, simultaneously bringing the suspension back to a neutral state.

Now let's say you shorten the bump stop, but leave the spring and shock untouched. The same specific value of force is transferred into the suspension. However, now you do not have the initial resistance of the bump stop helping the spring and shock absorber. In essence, you have softened the rear suspension by reducing the amount of force it will absorb as it compresses each incremental inch. Now there will be more force remaining to absorb when the chassis finally touches the bump stop than if you had left the bump stop at its original height. That remaining force must be absorbed by the springs, shocks and bumpstop. To absorb that force, all three components must continue to be compressed. So, eventually you could compress the suspension to the point where there are internal problems with the shock, or the beam axle strikes a non-compliant object (the exhaust system)."_
Having said that, whenever you lower the rear, the buffer plays a bigger role than stock height. Also since our springs/shocks are stiffer the added buffer spring could be too much. Now, VW has a "C" version which I still have to test, Eibach also recommended that one over the stock. Or, I'd cut my buffer in small increments upto a maximum of 1".


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (3wheelinWolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3wheelinWolf* »_Too bad you're not in NJ. I had a friend of mine who lives in OH, (saw him over thanksgiving) drive my car. He thought the car was nearly flat, and drove just as nice as his unmodified passat. It makes me wonder if I'm crazy, you're anal, or my suspension has something fundamentally different than yours.









Your roads could be butter smooth







Keep this in mind though that ride quality is VERY SUBJECTIVE. A nice ride for person A could be unbearable for person B.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Wolfie, I thought I am crazy or anal as well, but then I can see few more people (speacilly our friends from Seattle







) who could not stand the Shine ride and went with combination of different rear springs or went to entirely different setups. I know the roads in Seattle and in the Bay Area where I live things are not very different. Again, in a last attempt to be understood, I would say that I do not mind firm ride, I hate BOUNCY ride when the frequency of the bounces is too high and the vertical acceleration (deceleration) is too fast. The Konis on the rear did great in reducing that, the missing buffers did even more! Just got back from lunch, out is dry already and on the usual roads to the office I was able to realize that the new setting is very close to what I can live with for life. I strongly recommend Koni Yellows on the rear and 3" cur buffers for at least our Seattle Shine owners







Next step would be to replace the Bilsteins with Konis on the front too, and see what happens.......


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Glad to hear this issue is finally getting resolved, as Shine sure took a lot of heat, for a problem that wasn't the fault of the suspension itself. 
I agree that the Bilsteins transfer a bit more of the small bumps than some other dampers. 
As for the bumpstop issue, I do however, have a recollection of someone talking about how the bumpstops actually act as suplimentary springs on the MkIV chassis, some time ago (months). It was in one of the various Shine or lowering threads, but it must have slipped through the cracks, because noone made the connection with this problem (myself included, obviously). My guess is that shops that install lowered suspensions just deal with this as a matter of course. It's "common knowledge", just not quite common enough. 
The problem I see with "just cutting it down by the amount of the drop" is you lose the progressive nature of the bumpstop if you start at the soft end. Has anyone tried cutting the soft part off cleanly, then removing the drop's worth of the hard part, and reassembling it with the shortened hard part, and soft part put back on top. That, or just cutting only the other end of the stop (hard end)? Anything that makes the latter option not viable? 
This whole thing sorta reinforces my own personal opinion that lowering of the MkIV chassis is pretty much a hack. A-arms above parallel, rear dampers sitting on their bump stops. I'm glad I'll get to bypass this issue completely when I get my R32.








ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_As for the bumpstop issue, I do however, have a recollection of someone talking about how the bumpstops actually act as suplimentary springs on the MkIV chassis, some time ago (months). It was in one of the various Shine or lowering threads, but it must have slipped through the cracks, because noone made the connection with this problem (myself included, obviously). My guess is that shops that install lowered suspensions just deal with this as a matter of course. It's "common knowledge", just not quite common enough. 
ian

I just posted something about that 3 posts above. I also like your idea of cutting at the hard end, since we probably need the soft part more than the hard part. Pyce mentioned that it's not possible to cut at the top. I also mentioned the "C" version of the bumpstop which is designed for sports suspension (337) and could be shorter (not tested yet).


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_This whole thing sorta reinforces my own personal opinion that lowering of the MkIV chassis is pretty much a hack. A-arms above parallel, rear dampers sitting on their bump stops. ian

you may call it a "hack" job, but i call it German engineering!!!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Cadenza_7o)*

It is not a hack old but not a hack, there is 2" or more room on an OEM stock rear setup. 
Shine did not do their homework, if the Shine 180 lbs is sitting this low the Shine 200 lbs is lower still. Bilstein sport should be part of the setup as we are talking about a suspension that is .8 to 1.5 lower than OEM stock. Maybe even too low for the sport really but FAR too low for the HD. I've already said that this is partly a Shine issue.


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

As measured from wheel center to skirt bottom, my 180 Shine rear are the same as OEM.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_Glad to hear this issue is finally getting resolved, as Shine sure took a lot of heat, for a problem that wasn't the fault of the suspension itself.....

Shine took a lot of heat? I do not understand...... Are you saying we are giving them hard time or something? I was just having very bouncy ride and I could not live with it on my roads, and trying to work on this issue on my own expanses, because NOBODY wanted to provide a solution for me, even as a paying customer! I would have appreciated if someone would have told me that Koni and Bilsteins are so different and will provide two different ride qualities, but nobody did when I was purchasing my kit. I would have also appreciated if someone would have told me that the shock's buffers would seat on the shocks, and therefore if I have an uncomfortable ride, I could work on either exchanging those with shorter ones or simply cutting them, but no one said that either........ I got tired of this and decided to put back the hands in the pockets and go after a solution on my own. Then of course, I also decided to share all this experience with you guys. And let me tell you something else, there are few Shine owners in my area and they have the same feelings as me (about bouncy ride) but they would never come here to say it, afraid they will get bad response. I just do not have problem saying what I think and feel. I have no problem with losing my face if I have to. Dick is a nice guy and also managed to build an outstanding package for our cars. I love it and that is why I am not replacing it, but he refuses to work with me on my problems, so what shall I do? Remain in silence? Just live with it? No way! And you most of everyone else should know what I am talking about, because you have been the biggest promoter of a Shine Lite







You are the one who inspired me to do something for my own problem, because if you have never replaced your rears and if you have never told me that comfort feel comes way more from the rears - I would have never gone this way and would have probably (stupidly) replaced the whole package. 
So, 600$ later we know that Koni Yellows on full soft on the rears do great for comfort feel, but even more does reducing the buffers length! Combined together - and we are at where we want to be! I took a long drive on the dry this morning and even if it was cold and the tires are back to 36 PSI, I am having something really enjoyable. notice I did not say comfortable, as four Shine springs will never give Cadillac ride, that is for sure. But the car does not bounce anymore! Actually it bounces, but with way lower frequency (slower moves up and down) so it is not uncomfortable for me. I wish I had it this way since day one...... Saturday I will replace the front shocks, and even if the rears are more important for comfort, I am sure the fronts would give some little bit too. But let's see ...
P.S: The idea to cut and then paste the softer initial part (of the buffer) to the top hard part is great! I may do that this weekend.....I am just running some plastic washers on the rods, so to understand how far would the shock compress as to know where to restore the buffers to.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

nobody but me I've been a Koni pusher for a long time,


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (NewbieBaby)*

Newbbiebaby, I can say the shine springs I've seen are NOT stock height, they are two dead bodies in the trunk low. I 've never seen a 180 spring, only the shorter 200 lbs setup.


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_... I 've never seen a 180 spring, only the shorter 200 lbs setup.

Really how much higher does the 180 make it stick up?
According to pyce's description his sat low enough to be on the bump stop and partially compress it.
If you look at that pictures I linked to, you can see about 2/3" of travel before the bump stop hits, and that is with the HD shock and 200lb spring (which is supposed to sit lower). 
To me that is a little on the strange side.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

Wait there! The 337 springs were seating on the buffers! And because the comfort with those was almost the same as Shine before, i tmade us think that there is somehting else that "screws" the ride quality, and therefore we discovered the buffers were hitting the shocks! The 180 lb Shine springs are in now, but I hav eno buffers, so I can't teel hom much there would be. I will go and measure later in the parking lot and tell you...
As for ride height, the 180 lb spring lowers my rear by slightly more than 1/2 " from stock, even if visually looks like it is lowered more. According to Dick, the 180 spring is nothing else but the 200 spring with added 1/4 of coil (or was it 1/2 od coil?).....


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Ah got you, reading comprehension issue on my part.
I have no clue how much the 200lb lower from stock, all I know is they raised it (mine) up from the eibach's that were in when I bought it.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

I have few people with 200 lb springs here, we will take some measurements later. I am also evry interested to see what is the body lenght of the HD shock and how much is the stroke, so we can compare with the other three.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I have few people with 200 lb springs here, we will take some measurements later. I am also evry interested to see what is the body lenght of the HD shock and how much is the stroke, so we can compare with the other three.....

Hey Pyce, have you tried the Bilstein shocks with no (or short) buffers? Was wondering if the problems are more shock related or buffer?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

At this point I have to do that as well, otherwise we will never have the full picture ....... but not today.


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_... I am also evry interested to see what is the body lenght of the HD shock and how much is the stroke, so we can compare with the other three.....

If I get a chance tomorrow I'll try and get a length for you, but it's gonna hard because of that cover and I'm not taking the whole shock off again.


----------



## joeblow (Nov 9, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (oldmanTDI)*

OK you guys already figured out what I was going to tell you. The rear bump stops on vw's is very long in fact it is intended to be used as vw calls them implemental springs. Spring manufacters do tell you about them at least H&R does and they say to not cut them and I am sure shine would tell you likewise. The only manufacturer that I believe tells you to cut them is eibach because they believe in using a heavier stiffer spring to controll spring rate rather than making a lighter spring and using the implemental spring. It is not just vw that uses them many companies use them now becuase it allows for a lighter suspension while still achieving good support. In fact it is not just a rubber bump stop like the days of old it is an MCU micro sellular urothane and they are used as springs in many other applications but yes they are less sensitive to bumps than springs. So Pyce maybe you might look into rear eibach pro kit springs since they are designed not to use the implemental spring.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (joeblow)*


_Quote, originally posted by *joeblow* »_OK you guys already figured out what I was going to tell you. The rear bump stops on vw's is very long in fact it is intended to be used as vw calls them implemental springs. Spring manufacters do tell you about them at least H&R does and they say to not cut them and I am sure shine would tell you likewise. The only manufacturer that I believe tells you to cut them is eibach because they believe in using a heavier stiffer spring to controll spring rate rather than making a lighter spring and using the implemental spring. It is not just vw that uses them many companies use them now becuase it allows for a lighter suspension while still achieving good support. In fact it is not just a rubber bump stop like the days of old it is an MCU micro sellular urothane and they are used as springs in many other applications but yes they are less sensitive to bumps than springs. So Pyce maybe you might look into rear eibach pro kit springs since they are designed not to use the implemental spring.

If you just read a few posts ago, I mentioned that I talked to Eibach and they also didn't recommend cutting the bumptops with Prokits on Golf/GTI/Jetta, but they recommend it for Beetle and Passat!


----------



## joeblow (Nov 9, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (alexb75)*

Yeah I didn't see there were 4 pages sorry. But as for Eibach saying not to cut the bump stops they were saying to cut them for their mk4 spring kit in one of the vw mags a few months ago (I forget which and the mag is in storage right now) so that seems weird to me. I think what someone needs to make to keep you guys happy is a short but stiffer bump stop that way it will still have the soft comfy intitial travel but it will ramp up quicker on the big stuff so you do not have to worry about shock or exhaust damage. 
Just an after thought those with after market bigger exhaust should worry even more since it is that much closer to the rear beam. 
Oh and I just realized I called them the wrong thing too, there supplemental not implenmental springs but whatever you knew what I meant.
anyway keep it up guys it is interesting reading I however am happy with my MK2 susp bump stops where there at. But for comfort it would be nice to have a little more rear travel. But I think the key here is to get a shorter but stiffer or more progressive bump stop so you can have comfort and not bottom (have you cake and eat it too). Maybe if sameone has access to measureing the current rate and then experiment with other rubbers until finding a little softer one and then cutting the bump stop and filling the gap with the softer material. I dont know how this would be done but it is an idea.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (joeblow)*

compared my clamped rear OEM springs with the shine 200 lbs today. Shine springs are about 3/4 lower then mine (.200 down from stock). My springs are WAY stiffer. Seems to be about 1/2 on Dzljet's car before it hits the bump stop, we did not remove the cover, but moved the suspension up and down till we could see the bump stop move. Once again with clamps my OEM rear springs are far stiffer than the shine 200 lbs springs and even with 250 lbs bouncing on the back we did not get them to touch the bump stop. We were not going all out of course.


----------



## dmkozak (Aug 22, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (joeblow)*


_Quote, originally posted by *joeblow* »_OK you guys already figured out what I was going to tell you. The rear bump stops on vw's is very long in fact it is intended to be used as vw calls them implemental springs. Spring manufacters do tell you about them at least H&R does and they say to not cut them and I am sure shine would tell you likewise. The only manufacturer that I believe tells you to cut them is eibach because they believe in using a heavier stiffer spring to controll spring rate rather than making a lighter spring and using the implemental spring. It is not just vw that uses them many companies use them now becuase it allows for a lighter suspension while still achieving good support. In fact it is not just a rubber bump stop like the days of old it is an MCU micro sellular urothane and they are used as springs in many other applications but yes they are less sensitive to bumps than springs. So Pyce maybe you might look into rear eibach pro kit springs since they are designed not to use the implemental spring.


1. The bump stops are "supplemental" springs, not "implemental springs.
2. H&R DOES tell you to trim the bump stops for some of the suspensions.


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

pyce - the Bilstien HD shock body (meaning from the top to bottom just above the mount, not including the mount) is 14 3/8" in lenght.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (captainoblivious)*

Captain, the body near the mount is kind of chamfered, but if you refer to the edge where the surface chages and goes "in" to meet the mount, then the Sports are about 1/16 longer than the HDs. I presume the mount is the same..... thanks for the data! At this point I think I have shorter springs than anyone else. I have to take pictures and show you where my buffers are.
As for H&R telling you to trim the buffers - I have been H&R customer with brand new Sport springs and there was nothing that addresses this issue in the box.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Pyce, one more thing I should add, the Koni of full soft maynot give you the best ride, this is a rebound setting and is more related to unsprung weight, I'd try 4 to 6 clicks, which will dampen the spring expansion on rebound.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, I am doing some detailed exploration of the different settings the Koni give....... Yesterday afternoon I put back the 337 rear springs and drove the car in the evening on full soft. I really think it is stock ride quality, really very comfy! Then late in the night took out the shocks too and put them on 1/4 turn, which would be like 12.5% stiff. (Koni Yellows do more than two complete turns from full soft to full stiff, it is like 2 1/8 turns!) But for this experiment, I will presume the full turns are 2.....
So, I am on 12.5% and actually can notice already slight stiffening! It is almost like you went up with tire pressure, but cornering was the same, no "improved" feeling. So, tonight I will put them on 25% (1/2 turn) and see what gives/takes. I will try to build some sort of database for myself as to see where is the magic compromise and see if the comfort-handling is a linear relation with increasing the stiffness in a linear way..... Then I will put back the Shine 180 lb springs and repeat the same going through 1.4 turn every day. I wish I had some recording data device as to record some sort of accelerations/piston's movement, etc.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

I see no clicks just shove them up and turn. Sounds like you spend lots of time under your car







. 
I done with mine and with great results. I'm not say:
stock from springs with rubber spacers 1.5 inch, stock rear springs with clamps and 1 inch spacers, TC plain dampers, Shine RSB: $475 gets you the best suspension on the planet. No adjustment needed. No looking for springs, I'll post but few will hear the oldman. Total cost in springs: $22.00. Rear are stiffer than shine, front are slighly less stiff but taller. Arms are right where they were designed to be. Save you money for light rims and good tires!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

At this point it is not about finding the ultimate.... to me it is more to play and learn what gives what. I must say I am impressed by the "sensitivity" the Konis have on small adjustments.


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

I skipped most of the long posts b/c reading those on the computer screen makes my eyes hurt. What kind of clamps and spacers did you use? Oh if it's answered above I'll wade through them then ...
thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Mencius01)*

Peter Ultimate in terms of price / performance, not in terms of ultimate, which I'm sure you are close to. I did just buy a Shine RSB, as the stiffer the spring the stiffer the bar needs to be for the same applied rate. I got it from Brian at the Performance Cafe, same day shipping. 
Spring clamps and spacers are very common, I've even seen Walmart with them. I think even UHaul has them.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Some latest info on rear bumpstop "C" version:
I went to a couple of dealerships and none had both in stock, I finally found one which was far away from me and called them. They measured both, the "B" version is 13.1 cm, and the "C" version is 11.5 cm. So, the "C" is about 3/4 of an inch shorter than "B". I still wanna see them side by side and compare them, so gonna drive down there next week and will report hopefully with some pics.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

compare compression too. thanks


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_compare compression too. thanks

I don't know if I can do anything accurate, but will try just pressing it by hand.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Oh, Alex, almost forgot..... I remember once you said that you spoke to someone from can't remember where, and that someone told you the Koni Yellow are about only 5% softer than Bilsteins Sport (HD)...... I do not know what he/she was basing the answer on, but I think 5% is very far from the truth. I can actually take a stock shock (pretty new) and hold the shock body with a hand and the rod with the other hand and move then easily in and out. I can do the same with Koni Yellow (I would say on compression, the Konis set of full soft are about 10-15% stiffer than stock shocks, maybe less) ....... but I find it extremely difficult to move the rod even an inch on the Bilsteins!!! If I want to move it all the way to full compression, I have to use my both hands on the shock's body and compress against a wall or floor. If this can be accepted as somewhat valid comparison for stiffness, then the 5% answer you got was very, very far from reality....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Oh, Alex, almost forgot..... I remember once you said that you spoke to someone from can't remember where, and that someone told you the Koni Yellow are about only 5% softer than Bilsteins Sport (HD)...... I do not know what he/she was basing the answer on, but I think 5% is very far from the truth. I can actually take a stock shock (pretty new) and hold the shock body with a hand and the rod with the other hand and move then easily in and out. I can do the same with Koni Yellow (I would say on compression, the Konis set of full soft are about 10-15% stiffer than stock shocks, maybe less) ....... but I find it extremely difficult to move the rod even an inch on the Bilsteins!!! If I want to move it all the way to full compression, I have to use my both hands on the shock's body and compress against a wall or floor. If this can be accepted as somewhat valid comparison for stiffness, then the 5% answer you got was very, very far from reality....

That's very interesting since I was also checking the shocks before installing and I remember that I had a hard time pushing the Bilsteins and had to push it against the wall. The stock ones I could just press and compress. 
I've been told that a few times. The funny part is that I was gonna buy the Konis if they said it was softer and told them that, but they said it won't make that much of a difference and don't bother (and lost business because of that). It could be the rebound much different, or mono-tube design, self-adjusting Bilstein, etc... Basically, I don't know what to beleive these days. 
Here's some numbers I got some long time ago. Not sure at what shock speed it was stated and if it's valid at all, but here it is for the sake of argument:
*KONI:*
Front: 
Compression: 900 N 
Rebound: 1400 N (at min) * 2 at max 
Rear: 
Compression: 900 N 
Rebound: 2100 N Rebound (at min) * 2 at max
*Bilstein Sports:*
Front (or) Rear:
Rebound: 2135 N 
Compression: 1065 N 
Based on this Bilstein's compression is 18% more!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Based on this Bilstein's compression is 18% more! 

At the speed that my hands can provide - NO WAY! It is not even close to 18%. I can't quantify, but those numbers look too close for what I feel...

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_That's very interesting since I was also checking the shocks before installing and I remember that I had a hard time pushing the Bilsteins and had to push it against the wall. The stock ones I could just press and compress.

Konis on soft are very close to the stock shocks! On full stiff, the compression does not change at all, but boy, it is very tough to pull it out..... but even then, I can pull out the rod slowly, so the rebound is somewhat softer than the compression of the Bilsteins (yes, it is opposite directions and should not be compared, but just using the force I applied as to describe the stiffness). Also, once you compress all three of them, the Bilstein's rod comes out very quick and strong, the stocks come somewhat week, but fully expand too....the Konis' rods always stay where you leave them


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Also, once you compress all three of them, the Bilstein's rod comes out very quick and strong, the stocks come somewhat week, but fully expand too....the Konis' rods always stay where you leave them









True, I remember that Bilstein comes out right away, stock did too but at a slower rate. I think the difference maninly is low pressure twin-tube vs. mono-tube high-pressure gas.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Yup, two very different "technologies" that give quiet different results. My point is, if somebody tells me there will be no much difference between the two in terms of comfort - I know how to smile back now ......


----------



## mpls_a2_gti (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_If you live in states like Arizona, Nevada and all the rest with really great roads, just ignore this post and go get your Full Shine Kit as it comes (with Bilstein HD shocks) and start enjoying....

If you live (like me) in an area with very poor quality roads (read SFBA, Seattle, NYC, Detroit ... just to mention few), then perhaps you can spend some time and read about this pretty interesting experiment we did last weekend.
As few people around here know, I am one of the few "unhappy" Shine customer, because of the very poor ride quality I have with my car on the really bad roads in my area. We have been talking about possible solutions with some members here, but the answer is usually "try different rear springs"...... and in a way it works, it smoothens the ride somehow, but it is not really big improvement. At the same time the handling kind of goes south little bit. You put back the stock springs and it is not the same feeling you have when you drive full Shine. Dick would refuse to collaborate and help combine a real "Shine Mild" kit, so I almost decided to go back to stock springs and keep the Bilsteins. But before that, I managed to find a member with this setup, stock springs and Bilstein that is. So, she let me drive her car for about an hour, over all my ugly sectors on my daily commute, etc and this very important test showed me that the bounciness I have with the Shine Kit is not as many think due to the springs, but mainly due to the way the Bilsteins work! Of course, the ride in her car was better than in mine, but the frequency of the bounces was the same type, on the same spots, with the same pattern. It was just little bit less pronounced. At the same time, the handling was not any near to what a full Shine provides. So, my conclusion then (and yours may vary, as you drive on different roads) was that I would gain about 30% of comfort, but would lose about 70% of handling feel. I mean, I felt I would lose too much as to gain too little, so this option was out...... But an important (for me) conclusion was drawn - The Bilstein shocks are the main reason for the Shine kit to ride badly on my roads! 
So, I decided to do some search on shocks and see if a more comfortable replacement could be found for the Bilsteins. Came here to do search, but it was the same old game ..... somebody asks "Bilstein vs. Koni, what shall I get?" ..... and you there you go with three posts "get this" and four posts "get that" and then someone comes and says "I had both and this is stiffer than that one"..... but then here it comes somebody else that says "well, I have both too, but to me that one is stiffer than this one!"........ Of course, there were some helpful posts too, and in fact I have to thank "pal" for giving me very great feedback and being the final inspiration for me to go this way. The clear answer was that hands had to go deep in the pockets again and a set of Koni Sport (Yellow) Rebound Adjustable were purchased as an attempt to make my Shine work on my roads.
Just before I installed them, I shared what I am going to do with some members on an unrelated topic, and here it comes Alex with his brilliant idea "Why don't you put only the rears first and see what happens!"....... And here we are, Full Shine, Bilstein Sport on the Front, Koni Sport on the Rear on full soft. Have been driving on this setup for the whole weekend, put 500 miles and have to say that works very well for my case. The car is just great on the cement joints! It is so comfortable, that I started increasing the tire pressure again. Currently on 36 PSI Front and 34 PSI Rear and it is just nice. To tell the whole story in few words - first time I had pleasure driving up and down on 101! It is still stiff setup (did not change the springs), but does not bounce anymore. It is almost like.... you hear the impact with the holes, but you do not feel them that much anymore. Another great surprise was the fact that I can't notice difference in handling while driving in a spirited mode. The car handles just like before, but gained so much more comfort. I know it may sound unreal, but it is my experience.........
The question now is ....... shall I keep the Bilsteins in front or shall I put the Konis? I hear people talk about turn-in is better with the stiffer Bilsteins, but how much is that really affected? Guess I will walk the extra mile and put them in and find out what gives/takes. But one thing I would like to suggest to people who are in my situation (live in bad roads area, but still want to enjoy great handling) - you guys can get a set of only *rear* Koni Yellow Sport and replace just those. It is a great improvement in the comfort department while keeping the handling in the way it is now. Well, someone may prove me wrong and say that Konis would not be as great as Bilsteins on the track, but I am talking to those who do not race their cars, but live on the Un-Real Streets of USA







I got mine from http://www.parts4vws.com (dealt with Mike, who was patient enough to talk to me for 30 minutes) and the rears came at about 100$ each......
One thing I noticed, the Konis are as stiff as the Bilsteins early in the morning when it is very cold, for the first couple of miles. Then the ride goes to normal. I never noticed anything like this with the Bilsteins behind, they were just stiff all day long








Hope this will help someone in a search of better ride and great handling .....
peter

No offense, but why complain about the shine being too stiff? Thats what Shine kits are. You should have done better research before buying my friend...


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (mpls_a2_gti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mpls_a2_gti* »_
No offense, but why complain about the shine being too stiff? Thats what Shine kits are. You should have done better research before buying my friend...

















ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (Daemon42)*

No worries about worms. I would not even waste my time to answer.......


----------



## catalytic (Jul 31, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
At the speed that my hands can provide - NO WAY! It is not even close to 18%. I can't quantify, but those numbers look too close for what I feel...
[...]
Konis on soft are very close to the stock shocks! On full stiff, the compression does not change at all, but boy, it is very tough to pull it out..... but even then, I can pull out the rod slowly, so the rebound is somewhat softer than the compression of the Bilsteins (yes, it is opposite directions and should not be compared, but just using the force I applied as to describe the stiffness). Also, once you compress all three of them, the Bilstein's rod comes out very quick and strong, the stocks come somewhat week, but fully expand too....the Konis' rods always stay where you leave them









IMO, you can't use this as a valid basis for comparison except in specific situations. Shock damping is a dynamic measurement. It changes with both piston velocity and displacement. What you are measuring with your hands is the behaviour of the shock at extremely low piston velocities -- something that would be seen on a car only when going straight on a smooth road. The Bilstein high pressure monotubes have significantly higher compression damping at extremely low piston velocities just due to the air pressure. But at the piston velocities the shock would see on a car, the difference between the two is much less than what you experienced with your hands. If you could plot a graph of this, the Bilstein's compression damping would be much higher than the Konis at extremely low piston velocities, but would tend to converge as piston velocity increased.
That is why the Bilstein is known for being both more responsive at initial turn-in but worse in terms of ride quality / NVH (noise, vibration, harshness). Compression damping at very low piston velocities tends to affect NVH and refinement quite a bit. That is why the ProSystem is known for being a pretty smooth and refined suspension kit. The dampers are very progressive, meaning it is low at very low piston velocities and rises quickly as the piston velocities increase (somewhat like a progressive spring). In exchange for the superior refinement, though, the ProSystem does not match a Bilstein shock equipped suspension for responsiveness on-center and for initial turn-in.
When you talk about the characteristic of a shock, you have to know more than a single number. You have to know the shape of the damping curves across all piston velocities. The "accordion test by hand" or quoting a single number does not give you too much information, unfortunately.


_Modified by catalytic at 1:27 PM 12-17-2003_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (catalytic)*

Well said, fully agree Catalytic. I just do not have the equipment to do better comparison and was just sharing things I found in my garage. Nothing scientific, just exchanging findings for what they are worth. Maybe I used the wrong approach to support my feeling that the 5% difference is not what I felt. Neither the 18% is because maybe they actually can't be compared as both shocks deliver different ride quality/ NVH (I like that







) and now that I ma getting used to this combo Bilst F and Koni R, it is very interesting when going on uneven roads..... the bislteins telegraph almost everything through the front and the Konis behave like "cloud" (average of 10) pickup through the seat of my pants....
* - edited as to replace a word...


_Modified by pyce at 10:39 AM 12-17-2003_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (catalytic)*

great post, I should also note that the Koni shock builds air in the oil so it gets way looser after a few miles.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_.....I should also note that the Koni shock builds air in the oil so it gets way looser after a few miles.

I do not know the real reason, but I noticed that in the mornings. It really significantly softens after few miles.


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ the bislteins telegraph almost everything through the front and the Konis behave like "cloud" (average of 10) pickup through the seat of my pants....

I've seen in other threads people mention that the Bilsteins take from several hundred to a few thousand miles to break-in. Until then they are VERY stiff and don't give a good ride. I'm wondering if this was a factor in your poor initial results with the Bilsteins in the rear. Certainly understandable if you didn't want to leave them in long enough to find out.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

Stealth, you may have a point, but mine were new almost 60.000 miles ago. The Konis are new, but I am very satisfied with the change in ride quality since day one, so, I guess it can only get better from now......


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Stealth, you may have a point, but mine were new almost 60.000 miles ago. 

60,000 miles? I'm confused. Do you mean you has the Shine system for 60,000 miles before you switched to the Konis in the rear? Did you consider the possibility that the rear Bilsteins were worn out? Just because they come with a lifetime warantee doesn't mean they last forever.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

Only 40K with Shine springs, before that had few different springs, but always used the same shocks. Yes, it can be that they are no longer like new, but how can I be sure. But let's say they are not good anymore, then I had to replace them anyway, so I got the Koni Yellow and I am very happy at the moment. Extremely happy with the Shine front springs and Shine rear bar too! I just wish I knew more knowledgeable people two years ago, but hey.... it is all learning curve


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_... but hey.... it is all learning curve









I only wish more folks on the Vortex would view trial, error, experimentaion, and theoretical thinking in the same fashion.
Cheers for doing as much experimentation as you have, and even more so for sharing what you've found!
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

Chris, it is people like you that helped me (virtually) a lot! I am just trying to give back something as I have taken so much from many like you..... I just have this great wish that people take this place more seriously and be less biased. I am trying to be less biased too, and know it is not easy, but the important thing is to work on the matter







It is very tempting to follow the "I have it, therefore is the best" rule, but we will not go very far that way. I am trying hard not to go that way and it pays actually well, with acquired knowledge, and that is priceless! Cheers to you http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## joeblow (Nov 9, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

nice to see this thread still going it is good to get the info out of the shocks. I find it odd that the bilstiens have such fast rebound. That combined with a stiff spring ie: shine, H&R etc... would lead to a bouncy ride I would think. Isn't it usually stiffer spring needs more rebound. Also someone posted up there the different lengths of the bump stops I wonder if the shorter is what they came up with for the 337 and all the factory sport suspensions?
Anyway good info I like the post.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (joeblow)*


_Quote, originally posted by *joeblow* »_Also someone posted up there the different lengths of the bump stops I wonder if the shorter is what they came up with for the 337 and all the factory sport suspensions?
Anyway good info I like the post.

The shorter one "C" comes with 337/20ed and factory sports suspension. Tomorrow I'm gonna compare the two with accurate measurements and compression test (by hand!).


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, if it is not too late..... try to apply some known weight over the buffers when seating next to each other, and see how much they do compress. I know it is not so precise, but it will give better idea than "one is stiffer than the other"







...... me thinks they could be the same stiffness, and just shorter to suit the lowering, but you will say the final word


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, if it is not too late..... try to apply some known weight over the buffers when seating next to each other, and see how much they do compress. I know it is not so precise, but it will give better idea than "one is stiffer than the other"







...... me thinks they could be the same stiffness, and just shorter to suit the lowering, but you will say the final word









Funny enough, I was just about to leave to go to the dealership. I do what I can, since I am not gonna buy them just testing for now. It depends on the parts person and how much he would allow me to test those.


_Modified by alexb75 at 10:30 AM 12-18-2003_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Ok here we go. I checked out both bumpstops, "B" and "C". They're fairly different. "B" is about 5.1" and "C" is about 4.5". So, there's a .6 of an inch difference in height as you can see here:








"C" was also stiffer. When pushed on both "B" was definitely softer, specially at the first few millimeters of compression, after a point they were about the same. On "C" Only the first ridge was soft, the rest were pretty stiff. It also has one less ridge than "B", but it's shaped differently.
"C" bumpstop:








"B" bumpstop:








I think the biggest difference apart from the height is those three middle ridges in "B" which are darker! 
So, I am now confused. We definitely need shorter bumpstops since VW uses shorter one themselves. For 3/4" drop, they use 0.6" shorter (but stiffer) bumpstop. If any of you have been in a 337 or 20ed, they ride OK, so I think our comparison must be based on that. I think for 1.5" drop of mine I need about 1" shorter bumpstop. 
I only have one problem though. Cutting the bumpstop at the bottom gets rid of the soft part and if you look at the way it's constructed, I think if I cut it, the buffer will disintegrate at some point. Also, not sure if we could cut anything from the top (pyce?). I think that's why no one has suggested cutting bumpstops because of the shape of these buffers (progressive and oval shaped) and cutting them "MAY" create other problems. Would love to hear some experts opinions on this.









_Modified by alexb75 at 7:45 PM 12-18-2003_


_Modified by alexb75 at 7:50 PM 12-18-2003_


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: bumpstops*

just checked the bumpstops on my NB (oem sport package) and they're the shorter "C" version... 
...and definitely RIBBED for her pleasure!!!








no need to perform surgery...


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: bumpstops (Cadenza_7o)*

I was thinking the same thing, sick


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: bumpstops (oldmanTDI)*

MODERATOR ALERT!!!
(this thread used to be job-safe, but now ..., what with all the skin tones and such)
Bump stops; just say no.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: bumpstops (NewbieBaby)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NewbieBaby* »_
MODERATOR ALERT!!!
(this thread used to be job-safe, but now ..., what with all the skin tones and such)
Bump stops; just say no.

LOL















Actually my GF was looking at my digi-cam and she was like, "what are these things you took picture of?, what's going on"


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: bumpstops (alexb75)*

Well done, Alex! Great dedication! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Now we know even more. I am collecting few final numbers on few popular shocks (body length, stroke, etc) so we can sum it up at the end and have some sort of guideline of which shock will offset which buffer at which distance, so everyone can have more-or-less picture of what to do given the amount of lowering is going to get and set of shocks to go with, etc.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: bumpstops (pyce)*

Have you tried the Bilstein's with shortened bumptops yet?


----------



## sledhead1 (Feb 22, 2003)

things to try. You could run a shorter shock with the stock bumpstop.-not cheap You could try a lift on the car, just to test the ride. This would give you more shock travel but the same spring rate. A front lift is just a piece of pipe and the back is 2 plates and a spacer welded together. Cheap to test ride but may change handling. If you could find a short bumpstop it would would have to be very stiff because its so short. If it was soft it could not do to much b/c not travel. The best would be the shorter shocks. I am thinking I will try konis all around, shine springs and a 1" lift becouse I need the ground clearance. With the lift I would only be 1/2" taller in the front and 1/2" lower in the rear than stock but with a stiffer suspension.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (sledhead1)*

just put Koni in and run rubber spring spacers front rear, with spacers the stock rear springs are stiffer than the Shine rear springs (200 lbs ones)







, fornt are about as stiff as a OEM VR6 spring, if you start with a TDI, if you start with a VR6 they will be siffer than a shine front springs too


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

We were fooling around the cars yesterday and "discovered" that the front needs to be lifted more than 1" from stock as to have the A-arms parallel to the ground! The highest point of the wheel well in the front has to be a whopping 28" from the ground as to have parallel A-arms! No Shine, no stock, no nothing is even close....... can somebody confirm?


_Modified by pyce at 5:16 PM 12-22-2003_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

No direct confirmation from me, but I've seen photos of the OE MKIV chassis, and it seems the strut/control arm angle is less than optimum.
How much would you have to lift the front end to have the strut perpendicular to the control arm? This, as we know, is the point where camber begins to "go bad" (towards posititive) -- ideally you'd want this angle to be greater than 90 degrees so compression doesn't immediately cause camber to move from static negative towards 0 or positive.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

The higher she goes, the more the negative the camber the better. I think mine are at .250 up (stock VR6 spring .513 6 coil white/white/blue/blue) it is about even. You gotta measure from the center of the ball joint and the center bolt on the K member. The parallel arm just means you have the least camber change possible. But as Daemon42 said: it really is not parallel, it is where the arm hits perpendicular to the strut angle that camber goes + something like 3 inches above parallel. Get to this point and it is good bye performance, hence when the suspension gets slammed 2 inches and then you take a turn you now have a + camber before the tire can even bite, since the fatory suspension like the 337 starts at about 1.5 inches down, and even a SS suspension could be upto 1 inch down, slam that 50mm and you are into + camber as soom as there is any movement. There is no fix, unless you dial in massive negative camber to begin with and drive like the devil is after your soul.
All the suspension has to do is keep the tire slightly negative in camber, and this can be done OEM for about 3 inches, 2.5 inches with shine and 1 inch with a "performance coil over". Since no matter what, there is more than 1 inch of travel on a street car, there is no way a slammer suspension is working as the camber is whacked out.







As the camber gets whacked the tire sidewall will roll.
Hence as on an other post about tires, on the street IMO, suspension is far more important than tire. Sure max grip still favors sticky tires, but it is a proper suspension that keeps ANY tire from rolling over the side wall. Sure it is a two part equation, but the tire part wears out, I’d spend my money on: proper suspension, lighter rims, long before I’d spend my money on sticky tires. Yes most cars I’ve owned have had the $800+ tires change them out every year. Now that I’m into economy, I’d rather have good suspension, light rims and OK tires. 



_Modified by oldmanTDI at 4:21 AM 12-23-2003_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

I think I calculated the angle of the struts from vertical is something like 
12-13 degrees for the MkIV chassis. The A-arms are 15 inches long so you'd
have to raise the outside end about 3.3 inches from parallel to the ground
to make them perpendicular to the struts (really perpendicular to the
line between the top of the strut and the ball joint). 
That's the point where the camber curve is flat, and would
immediately start to go positive with any further compression.
The problem is, even with an inch, or inch and a half of lowering
the roll center is at ground level or below. ala.. 








(See the green lines, imaging a couple more degrees angle on the A-arms).
If you look at this thread http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1147429
you can see that the R32 A-arms and ball joint appear to be in a different
location (it's lower than even the 20AE/337 with less angle on the A-arms) 
which means there may be some hope for the MkIV chassis yet. 
ian


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Thanks for the link to that thread








Maybe when it's time to retire the B4, I'll be able to "rationalize" a smaller/sportier chassis







. Looking forward to what VWAG as wrought with the MKV chassis.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

Hey folks, HAPPY NEW YEAR! 
Just to keep the discussion going... I've been testing my rear suspension even more and trying to pay more attention to its behaviour. The worst ride on the rear suspension occurs when the car is getting off a bump! I mean when I hit a bump, the front goes over it fine, and then gets down ok too (firm ofcourse). The rear goes over the bump harsher (not as much travel) but it HITS HARD when it gets off the bump and hits the ground pretty hard. 
So, here's a question. What is the most probable cause of this? Is it mostly shock or bumpstop. Is this too high rebound or compression that causes this? Being fairly poor these days has limit my experimental abilities







.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Happy New Year








What do you have in there right now Alex? Which springs, shocks and buffers?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Happy New Year








What do you have in there right now Alex? Which springs, shocks and buffers?

It's all in the signature. Bilstein Sports + Nuespeed Sport + stock (B) buffers.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, IIRC the Neuspeed Sport springs (yellow) lower even more than the 337....... and if I am correct, then you are definitely riding on your buffers! 


_Modified by pyce at 6:54 PM 1-3-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, IIRC the Neuspeed Sport springs (yellow) lower even more than the 337....... and if I am correct, then you are definitely riding on your buffers! 


Yeah. I am 0.5" lower and most probably in the buffer already. My problem is that I don't have a garage to change and try things myself (and not very mechanical anyways!), also not much money to spend on things these days. So, I know I gotto change the buffers or cut them, but was wondering if I "MUST" change the shocks too!







Since I can cut the cost of installation by doing both! 
If shocks is not absolutely necessary, I'll just do the buffers. Have you tried the Bilsteins' with short buffers yet?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, if you are 0.5" lower than 337, then you are BIG time on the buffers and that is where your harsh ride comes from (at least very good part!). If you do not have garage, go to any shop with a floor jack. It is really about 20 minutes job to lift the car, unscrew the top of the shock (without even removing the wheel), get the buffers out, cut about half of them, and put everything back. If their hourly rate is about 80$, you can cut a deal with them to do both sides for about 20-25$. It is really worth!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

So you think shorter bumpstops have bigger impact on the ride than Bilstein shocks, right?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Yes, and I will try to recap why..... when I put the 337 springs and took out the Shine rears, there was not much difference and you can find my wondering "why" on this same topic earlier. the 337 was significantly softer spring, but I did not gain much in comfort. Only then we found out the buffers were slightly even compressed on top of the shock with that 337 spring. remember we were cutting them piece by piece? and with more cutting, the more the comfort was going towards stock quality...... today, very short buffers, and I am a happy traveler even with the Koni on half stiff...... BUT, I have not put back the Bilsteins to see what will be with them! I will do it one of these days, but not now. There was a nice improvement when going from Bilsteins to Koni on full soft, but the most dramatic improvement was when I cut the buffers, because the "bouncing" you are talking about just above is exactly what I had and what was due to the buffer, as it is really hard (you know that, you saw it) and becomes even harder very progressively....... Anyway, you may cut the buffers and still be unhappy with the ride as your springs are stiff, let's face it! It al depends what exactly you want the car to do on the road....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Now, another question. Can I cut them at the top? I've seen the buffer but not sure what's the mount on top of it? to me the best way to cut these is to cut from the top not to damage the bottom of the buffer. 
Alternatively, what do you think about cutting in the middle? Is it even possible? You know the brown part of the buffer. If I cut it in the middle, then stick two parts together with some glue (have any idea what?) and then put it back together? How's that idea?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_......Alternatively, what do you think about cutting in the middle? Is it even possible? You know the brown part of the buffer. If I cut it in the middle, then stick two parts together with some glue (have any idea what?) and then put it back together? How's that idea?

I would do ti that way too! Cut in the middle and glue the top and bottom, this way you have the cavity where the plastic cover seats AND the original top too, so it fits nicely in the metal part above! As for glue - no clue


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

testing


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Hello Folks,
I emailed the following info to Pyce back over Christmas, and he suggested that I post it to this forum & thread (though if posting it turns out to be a bad idea, please blame me and not him!). It’s a mixture of suspension theory, observations, and conjectures, divided among the following topics:
Sources
Impact harshness of monotube vs. twin tube shocks
Ride characteristics of coilovers vs. stock spring configurations
Spring rate vs. wheel rate vs. ride rate
Other significances of roll centers
F/R roll stiffness and under/oversteer
Rear bumpstops and auxiliary springs
Some personal experiments with rear Koni Sports
Blatant opinions
Request for help
Each section will have a short heading, so feel free to scroll to whatever interests you. But first some background:
SOURCES
Unless indicated otherwise, what follows is drawn primarily from:
“Tune to Win”, Carroll Smith
“Drive to Win”, Carroll Smith
“Race Car Vehicle Dynamics”, Milliken and Milliken
“New Directions in Suspension Design”, Colin Campbell
“How to Make Your Car Handle”, Fred Puhn
If any of you are interested, the Smith and Puhn books are extremely accessible, and do a great job of explaining many of the concepts I see frequently discussed in this forum. Milliken and Milliken is essentially the bible, but it goes on for 880 pages (hard cover) and about half of it is math, so it’s more for the diehards and extremely intrigued. Puhn is incredibly outdated in terms of application (lots of talk about Ford Pintos!), but the concepts still hold, and his explanations are really clear.
By the way, my own experience is with British sports cars (Triumphs and MGs), which are quite different from VWs (I’ve got a 2000 GTI 1.8T, but the only mods on it are Koni rear shocks and a red Christmas bow in the front grill (female friend’s idea)); hence I absolutely defer to people like Daemon, Pyce, and OldmanTDI for judgements on what actually works or doesn’t work on our Dubs – what follows is not “What works”, but “Why and How it Might” (and if along the way I accidentally manage to offend any of you, please let me apologize beforehand, as I mean no offense to anyone!).
So here goes:

IMPACT Harshness of Monotube vs. Twin Tube Shocks
There’s been a fair bit of discussion on these boards about the ride comfort of Koni vs. Bilstein; a few years ago I managed to get a Koni engineer on the phone (a friend was modifying a Crown Vic, and we were choosing between Bilstein and Koni), and was given an explanation for why the Bilsteins might feel so much "bouncier" on our VW's (the context was why did Koni offer monotube high-pressure shocks for some cars, and not for others). For what it’s worth, the explanation is consistent with engineering concepts we deal with in robotics (my former employment), as well as with personal experience in Koni- and Bilstein- shod cars. Please note that what follows is not an endorsement of one shock over another, and your own ride & handling preferences will determine which of these two excellent shocks is better for you (we actually went with the Bilsteins on the Vic (where they worked wonderfully), in part because of what the Koni engineer told us, but for my GTI I’ve gone with Konis). Anyway, here’s the essence of it:
While a high pressure monotube shock (like all Bilsteins, and some Konis) have a number of advantages for racing (e.g., more efficient heat dissipation, less cavitation and emulsifying of shock fluid, less unsprung weight if mounted upside down, ability to be mounted horizontally, etc.), for street use the basic difference comes down to piston size: because twin-tube shocks (many Konis) have, well, twin concentric tubes (the outer tube serving as a reservoir for fluid displaced by the piston shaft), in practice they have significantly smaller piston diameters than do monotubes. That means that, for a given piston movement, the piston on a monotube pushes more fluid through the various internal valves and orifices than does its counterpart in a twin-tube. In theory, this difference need not yield a corresponding difference in shock performance: in theory, one can design valves that will make a twin tube function exactly like a monotube. But in practice -- in the real world of manufacturing tolerances, minimum component sizes and clearances, discrete flow paths, and the like -- in practice the increased fluid flow in a monotube means that the monotube is faster acting: when the piston begins to move (or when it reverses its motion), the damping forces build up much more rapidly in a monotube than they do in a twin tube. For example, with racing shocks, the best monotubes begin damping within 1 mm of piston travel, whereas the best twin tubes do little or nothing for the first 4 or 5 mm of motion (figures taken from “Drive to Win”; presumably the dead zones for street shocks are proportionally greater). That's great for racing, where you want precise control over suspension movements. It's also great for cars with a lot of slop and compliance in their suspensions and subframes (e.g., the Crown Vic), or for cars where the shocks are mounted so that the shock pivot points move far less than do the wheels. But for street cars where the shock is mounted fairly directly to the wheel carrier and is connected directly to the chassis (which is certainly the case with the GTI rear suspension), the fast-acting nature of the monotube can lead to a pretty harsh ride. Hence Koni frequently specs twin-tubes for street cars: they’re not ideal from a track perspective, but they deliver far less noise and impact harshness than do the monotubes.
The above would explain several persons’ accounts of a harsher ride with the Bilsteins than with the Konis. Irrespective of the steady-state damping rates (which are rebound-adjustable on the Konis, in any case), the fast-acting nature of the Bilsteins on initial motion will transmit much more force into the chassis when the wheels hit sharp, sudden bumps – hence, more noise and jolting hits on freeway expansion joints and the like, despite the fact that big, less sharp-cornered bumps can be fairly comfortable. The explanation is also consistent with Shine’s mild Bilstein preference for their suspension kit, as even the Koni engineer extolled monotubes where pure handling is the goal.
Now, as for the “bouncy” ride that Pyce and some others have reported with the Bilsteins (as well as with the Konis at high rebound settings), that appears to be a related but separate phenomenon. My apologies if I’ve misunderstood the posts, but my impression is that some people are feeling a high frequency (perhaps 5-10 hertz) up and down motion that’s too small to actually see (that is, you don’t see yourself bouncing up and down), but which can certainly be felt (in fact, it’s a really annoying sensation). If that’s what Pyce and others were feeling in the aftermath of discernible bumps (or even more inexplicably, while driving on what appeared to be perfectly smooth roads), then it’s something I used to experience in my MG whenever I dialed up the Spax racing shocks too firm, and is decidedly *not* a sign of underdamping. Instead, it’s an artifact of the tires, which, after all, are very stiff undamped springs. The best way to see this is to imagine a car with a completely locked up suspension; that is, one with completely solid springs or shocks: such a car would bounce on the tires. With a normally working suspension, one doesn’t overtly notice the tire bounce (it’s there, but as an indistinct general worsening of the ride), but with a really fast-acting, super stiff shock, you can sometimes feel it.
(As for why it’s so annoying: there’s been a lot of research into what people find annoying or comfortable, and that research has led to almost all road cars being tuned to ride between 1 and (at the most) 2 hertz in bounce: slower than that, and people get seasick; faster, and the ride grades from annoyance to pain to actual physical injury. Because the tires are so much stiffer (in terms of vertical spring rate) than the springs, the bounce rate due to the tires is way up in the annoying range...)
(Continued on Next Post)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Continued from Previous Post
RIDE characteristics of coilovers vs. stock spring configurations
Someone on this forum (was it Daemon?) once spent a great deal of time trying (very patiently, I might add!) to explain to a coilover enthusiast that there is nothing inherently soft-riding about a coilover vs. the OEM shock / spring design. I’d like to add my voice in support of whoever was making that argument, and indeed I’d like to go one farther: rather than being inherently better riding, coilovers (on the A4 Golf/Jetta platform) are inherently harsher – yes harsher – than the stock configuration. That’s not to say that a given coilover won’t feel better-riding than a given spring/shock combination – but if it does, then it’s because of the spring and damper rates chosen, not because of the inherent coilover design:
Starting at the front of the car: in a McPherson front suspension, the force of the road pushing upwards on the hub carrier is not along the axis of the McPherson strut. That is, when the wheel hits a bump, it doesn’t push straight up the strut; instead, the hub assembly slides up the strut while simultaneously trying to rotate upwards against the strut. The strut of course resists that rotating motion, but the resulting side load causes the strut to bind under compression – which leads to a harsher ride. To counteract this effect, the stock OEM springs are not quite symmetrical: if you look at a dismounted OEM front spring, you’ll see that it’s kind of crooked, like a slightly bent cucumber. Because of this designed-in distortion, the compressed OEM spring doesn’t push straight down along the strut, but itself pushes slightly off-axis in a way that counteracts the side load on the strut – which means no more binding, which means a smoother, quieter ride (aftermarket springs typically don’t have the full-on cucumber shape, but use a symmetric shape with the final coil lying off-axis: this shape gives much of the benefit but at a much lower cost). When you remove the OEM spring and replace it with a coilover, which typically has a nice, symmetric coil spring, you lose the binding-correction, and in theory (and supposedly in practice) you get a harsher ride.
How does one reconcile this engineering concept with Pyce’s observation that incredibly stiff coilovers (on a friend’s car) ride better than his lower-spring-rate Shine setup? I don’t know. Perhaps its the shock tuning, perhaps the spring rate on the coilovers is far lower than advertised(?).
Moving along to the rear: the twist beam trailing arm setup on the A4 platform is free from the sort of binding that afflicts McPherson struts, so generally a coilover should offer the same ride as will an identically-damped & sprung stock setup. Even here, however, there’s a potential for increased road noise, as the stock separation of spring & shock (besides making for better packaging (that is, it leaves more room for the luggage compartment)) allows for the use of a nice, big, fat, vibration-absorbing rubber isolator on the end of the spring, whereas the coilover transmits spring vibrations through the much smaller shock eye bushing. Not a huge concern to the sort of folks who want to stiffen suspensions, but once again, the coilover tends to lose out in the area of ride and harshness.
That’s not to say coilovers are a bad idea (I have no experience with them): it’s just that if you have coilovers and discover a wonderful combination of ride and handling, then the magic comes from some very careful tuning and matching of spring rates, damping rates, and bushing durometers, and not from inherent coilover design.

SPRING rate vs. wheel rate vs. ride rate
. There's been some talk on Vortex about front/rear spring rate balance and about how the front springs have to be stiffer than the rear, etc., and while the discussions have been interesting, I thought I’d throw in some theory:
1) From a suspension kinematics standpoint, spring rate per se is irrelevant; wheel rate (the spring rate as measured at the wheel) and ride rate (the frequency with which the suspension bounces) are what matter. When comparing different springs that might be mounted at a given wheel, it's convenient to talk about the spring rates -- but it can be very misleading to compare front spring rates to rear spring rates, or even coil-over spring rates to stock spring rates when -- as is the case with the GTI rear suspension -- the stock spring is not concentric with the shock:
To a rough approximation, the wheel rate is proportional to the square of the lever arm on which the shock acts. That is, if a 100 lb/in spring acts directly on a wheel, then the wheel rate is 100 lb/in; but if the 100 lb/in spring is mounted halfway between the wheel and the suspension pivot point, then the wheel rate drops to 25 lb/in. At the front of the Golf/Jetta, the spring on the McPherson strut acts directly on the hub carrier, and so wheel rate is fairly close to spring rate (though one has to correct for the inclination of the struts). At the rear, however, the stock springs lie closer to the trailing arm pivot points than do the hubs, and there’s a mechanical advantage effect (it doesn’t look like much, but remember things go with the square of the leverage); hence wheel rate at the rear will be less than spring rate – with stock-geometry springs.
Note, by the way, that the shocks are mounted farther aft (farther away from the pivot points) than the springs: that means that a 200 lb/in coilover (where the spring is mounted on the shock) is going to lead to a higher wheel rate than a 200 lb/in stock-configuration spring. How (again) does one reconcile that with reported softish rides on incredibly high-spring-rate coilovers? Again, who knows? --> shock tuning? inflated spring rate figures? You’ve got me(!)
And finally, concerning Front/Rear spring rate balance: while the racers on this forum can tell you what combinations of spring rates will actually work on our cars, you might be interested in the general theory used widely in the auto industry: in designing for a good ride, the variable you control for is not wheel rate (and certainly not spring rate), but ride rate, which is the frequency (bounces per second) of the ride in hertz. This frequency varies with the Square Root of (wheel rate / sprung mass), and for road cars is set somewhere between 1 and 2 hertz. (Note that front wheel drive cars carry a lot more sprung mass in the front than in the rear; hence if you had identical wheel rates front and rear, the rear ride rate will be much higher than the front ride rate – that is, the rear will feel much stiffer. To make the front and rear the same “stiffness” on a front heavy car, you have to make the front wheel rate higher than the rear wheel rate.)
Now, for normal street vehicles, which are relatively softly sprung and damped, the norm is to set the rear ride rate slightly higher than the front ride rate – i.e., the rear bounces faster, and feels stiffer (interestingly, this point is the only one on which I have ever differed (and I do so very respectfully!) with Daemon). The difference is generally about 10%-15%, meaning that if the front is tuned to 1.0 hertz, the rear should bounce at 1.10-1.15 hertz. This mismatch is designed-in because pitch is generally more annoying to people than pure vertical bounce, and the mismatch massively reduces the amount of pitch that arises when the car hits a bump at speed (the front hits the bump first, going into an up-down cycle, but the faster bouncing rear soon catches up with the front, giving you a flat ride).
And, just to complicate things even beyond the above, race cars generally have much stiffer (in ride rate, not just spring or wheel rate) fronts than do street cars, for handling reasons. And highly-damped, stiffly-sprung vehicles don't benefit as much from the "faster" rear ride rate as do more softly-damped, softly-sprung cars (they don’t quite bounce long enough for the pitch correction to work properly). Hence one doesn't have to stay with the OEM F/R spring (or wheel, or ride) rate balance when upping the spring rates & shock damping: the OEM ratio is set to reduce pitching, but since your ability to control pitch goes down anyway with stiffer springs and shocks, you might as well choose your wheel and spring rates for better handling – in practice, that means usually means the front springs are stiffened more than the rears.

OTHER significances of roll centers
A perhaps minor point here, but I’ve seen lots of talk about dropping roll centers with lowered McPherson suspensions, and about how the lowered roll center leads to a greater roll couple (distance between center of gravity and roll center) and thence to greater roll. All true and correct, but those who really want to get into suspension theory should note there are other roll center effects as well:
For one thing, the height of the roll center has a big impact on the F/R distribution of lateral weight transfer that occurs during cornering. It doesn’t seem to be a big issue with Dubs (I don’t know why not), but on old British sports cars, playing with roll center height has as big an effect (or bigger) as playing with anti-roll bars and the like. You can also get into some pretty horrendous dynamic problems (meaning, the car gets all squirrelly and unhappy under braking and on transitions) if the front and rear roll centers wind up at very different heights (a really bad situation to avoid is one where the front roll center is a lot lower than the rear center). Roll centers that get far away from ground level (be it above or below) also encourage the car to “sidestep” on one-wheel bumps, which is another source of instability on bumpy corners, and high roll centers (not a problem with our cars) cause “jacking” and other miseries. These are not things we ordinary enthusiasts have to think terribly hard about (unless we’re so foolish as to start modifying our suspension geometries willy nilly), but I mention them mostly to encourage people to really listen to Dick Shine – doubtless Dick has forgotten far more than I’ll ever know about all the horrible things that happen when you drop a VW front end too far, and I imagine he only talks about roll couples because that’s by far the easiest thing to understand. But please take note, you really don’t want to drastically change the front roll center height by very much from stock.

F/R ROLL stiffness and under/oversteer
Gosh, I’m getting sleepy. I’m going to truncate this section and edit/revise/post the rest of the letter tomorrow. Let’s just say for now that while in general terms you want to stiffen the rear of a car to reduce understeer, there are lots of situations where that “rule” doesn’t actually hold. As an example, with an MGB, stiffening the front springs by 37% and the front antiroll bar by 53% (while leaving the rear stock) will drastically reduce understeer, and is indeed the factory race tune. Our VWs are probably not so quirky (there are few things so quirky as vintage British sports cars!), but if people like Pyce and Oldman are reporting good street handling from beefed up front springs and relatively soft rears, well, there are ways of explaining it. But I’ll stop now and hit the sack. Hope the above hasn’t put anyone to sleep (and hope it hasn’t offended anyone!), and Happy New Year wishes to everyone. Cheers.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Sorry folks, about all the bizarre symbols in the previous posts. I wrote the text in Microsoft Word and did a cut and paste, and somehow all the quotation marks, apostrophes, colons, semicolons, and dashes came out weird.







Hope you can still read it.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

oh my... this is worse than BSE (mad cow disease).


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Sorry folks, just testing to see which punctuation marks I can actually use
. , ; : ‘ “ ( ) [ ] / ? ~ ! @ # $ % & * - _ < >


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Why here? There is a testing forum for this:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zeroforum?id=40


----------



## GTItraveler (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Thank you for posting such in depth information. It is a little difficult to wade through, but with patience I think, very worthwhile http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by GTItraveler at 8:13 AM 1-7-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (GTItraveler)*

Very glad you decided to post it! And thank you very much for the time and effort to put all this together. My hat goes off for you.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Next to Last Installment
Ok, it looks like I should avoid quotation marks and apostrophes... : ) The language is going to be a little stiff, as I cannot (can’t) use contractions, so please forgive me if I sound like an elderly librarian....(!)
First, regarding what I wrote about roll centers: the punctuation weirdness, coupled to some poor wording on my part, might make it sound like I was criticizing Dick Shine, when in reality I wanted to do the opposite. So let me try again: there are enough strange things that can happen to a lowered suspension that if someone like Dick Shine (who has a lot of experience and know how) tells you there are problems with lowering a GTI front end beyond a certain amount, you really ought to consider what he is saying. I personally do not know what can or cannot work with a VW front end, as I have never done a suspension analysis on the A4 geometry, but in addition to the roll center issues discussed above, there are potential concerns involving camber gain, bump steer, caster & trail, kingpin inclination, and other such geometric issues. That does not mean that cars in general should not be lowered, but it does mean that there are many reasons why a particular car (such as our beloved Golf/Jetta) might only work well with a very limited amount of lowering. So please do listen to Dick Shine and others on this one!
Ok, back to the letter(!):

F/R ROLL stiffness and under/oversteer (continued)
Right. We were talking about whether increased front stiffness will always lead to more understeer...
If a car has front and rear suspensions that are geometrically very similar, then yes, you can easily tune the degree of steady-state understeer or oversteer by adjusting the relative stiffness of each end (stiffening the front tends to encourage understeer, whilst stiffening the rear fosters oversteer). But this general rule does not always hold when the front and rear suspension designs are very different from each other; nor does it necessarily apply to non steady state conditions, as when we are turning into or accelerating out of a corner.
An extreme example would be an old fashioned live-axle car with a lot of roll (which, by the way, describes an MGB): when that car leans in a turn, the front independent suspension produces a lot of positive camber on the outside tire, whereas the rear axle beam holds the rear tires more or less upright. Because the front tire has rolled onto its shoulders while the rear tread is still flat to the road, the car understeers into the bushes. If you stiffen the front springs and antiroll bar on a car like that, the car rolls less, the front tires keep more of their tread on the road, and you can wind up with far less understeer, even though you have considerably stiffened the front end. (In fact, with an MGB you wind up inducing oversteer, and the factory recommends softening the rear springs by 7 percent or so to keep things under control!) Once again, I do not know what happens with the twist-beam rear trailing arms on our VWs (Daemon, Oldman, Dick Shine, any comments?), but if a careful experimenter or tuner reports that a car seems to understeer less with a stiffened front end, one should not dismiss the report simply because it disagrees with the general rule of thumb.
A completely different issue concerns whether you in actually in fact want to reduce the steady state understeer on your VW(!). Racers and autocrossers certainly do, and some of the more adventurous street drivers really do as well, but for many (or maybe even most) of us who drive on public roads and simply want to have more fun with our little cars, when we say we want less understeer, we are really saying we want better turn-in, quicker response to steering inputs, and less understeer on sharp, low-speed corners such as are found around town. And that is pretty different from reducing understeer overall:
Steady state understeer is a really nice feature to have in a real world of bumpy corners, dogs running across the street, sand at the apexes, snow, and SUVs with cell phones. Again, some fraction of the Vortex population really does want to minimize steady-state understeer, but I for one was shocked the first time I drove a car (a Formula Ford) with true neutral handling: you have to be really deliberate and careful with your steering and throttle inputs at speed, and if you don’t properly treat the corners in distinct turn in / apex / power out phases, you can spin like a top. Exhilarating on the racetrack, yes, but on the road I would lack the ability to push the car hard enough to have fun, without eventually killing myself and probably some innocent bystander. For me (and perhaps for many of us) a much better ideal is a VW with stock levels of steady-state medium and high-speed understeer, but which turns in sharply, responds more crisply to steering inputs, and resists rolling onto the outside front tire shoulder in a sharp low-speed corner. Such a car (for me anyway) would be nicely responsive in the twisties, and yet still safe when pushed on a public road.
It should be possible to attain this ideal by means other than stiffening the rear end. In particular, you should be able to accomplish those goals at least part way by installing stiffer shocks and better tires, and perhaps by going to a slightly stiffer front spring (like Oldman, I think the GTI front antiroll bar is already plenty stiff: a big front bar can keep the car flat, but it gives the car, for reasons I do not fully understand, a curiously dead sensation on turn in; not very fun at all). One reason I am so interested in the experiments that Pyce, Tyrolkid, Oldman, and others are performing is that you guys are circling around this sort of set up; please do keep your posts coming, and I am very interested in your results!
Oh, two asides before wrapping up this section: (1) the above is consistent with the oft-reported Shine recommendation that most people are better off with better shocks on stock suspensions than with the majority of aftermarket kits out there (though for some people there might be reasons to go with Koni instead of Bilstein); and (2) Carroll Smith, in Chapter 7 of Drive to Win, lays out a table of different handling maladies and possible fixes; the recommendations are confusing as all get out, but they are really instructive.

REAR bumpstops and auxiliary springs
Nothing you Vortexers do not already know, but just to support what has already been said about the rear bumpstops on the A4 Golf / Jetta platform:
The rear bump stops are in fact (as I think everyone concluded) auxiliary springs. They are there because of the tremendous load changes that occur at the rear of the car as you go from single driver to 5-adults-plus-luggage (in the Campbell book, there is a case study of the Ford Fiesta suspension, done primarily to show how difficult it is to design a small hatchback suspension that is effective in both loaded and unloaded states; without supplemental springs, the suspension is extremely compromised). As Pyce and others have noted, the bump stop rate is extremely progressive (that is, it gets much stiffer with displacement): with the stock spring, it comes increasingly into play the greater the load (people, luggage, etc.) carried by the car, and as the ride rate (bounce frequency of the car, in hertz) is determined by the square root of (wheel rate / sprung mass), the progressive nature of the bump stop permits the ride rate (bounce frequency) to remain relatively constant irrespective of load (basically, the rear of a heavily-loaded car sags down so that it is resting on the bump stop, and thus experiences a higher spring rate that is well-matched to the increased load. That’s with a stock rear spring. Unfortunately, with a lowered rear suspension (as Pyce and others have found), it can come into play way too early, leading to an overly firm ride). Without the stops, the rear of the car will bounce more slowly but with more displacement the more people pile into the car. If you intend to use your car as a beast of burden (which my GTI frequently is), then you may want some sort of progressive stop back there; that is, drastically cutting away the stop (for a better ride with lowered rear springs) reduces the utility of the car for carrying around people and luggage. Supposedly you can make your own progressive stops from scratch, using multicellular urethane sold by Koni, but I have no experience with that. (The front stops, by the way, are more like conventional bumpstops, as the load on the front wheels does not change nearly so much as it does on the rears; hence there is no need for supplemental springs.) 

SOME personal experiments with rear Koni Sports
This fall I installed Koni yellows on the rear of my 2000 1.8 GTI, which is otherwise completely stock (0.510 in / 0.451 in F/R spring coil gauge; 23mm / 22mm F/R antiroll bar diameter (yes, I know the factory rear bar is supposedly 21mm or 18mm, but I've measured it 3 times...), and my experiments agreed with what Pyce has been finding (and I performed the experiments before I read his posts, which is always encouraging). If you are curious as to how rear Konis perform on an otherwise stock sport suspension @ 35k miles, here is a little summary:

1) When new, the car (with stock shocks) was floaty at 45+ mph, had decent turn in, but plowed massively in slow 90-degree (city street) corners (the plowing came from the outside front tire rolling onto its shoulder). Ride was smooth and wonderful. With blown rear shocks, both ride and handling were simply dreadful in every sense of the word.

2) At first I installed the rear Konis with 1/2 turn (180 degree shaft rotation) stiffness (as did Pyce, I found about 2 1/8 shaft revolutions of adjustment available, so 1/2 turn was ~ 24 % stiff). At this setting:
a) turn in was very crisp
b) the plowing understeer in low-speed (35 mph) corners disappeared (with less transient roll and overshoot, the outside front tire stopped rolling onto its shoulder), to the extent that I could easily pitch the car and swing the tail out a bit without doing anything crazy with dropped throttle or the like. It was a lot of fun.
c) at highway speeds, the car was more stable, but there was still uneasiness (presumably from the soft front shocks).
d) ride was not great: the bounciness and impact harshness others have reported with Bilsteins was sort of there, at all speeds. Big bumps were ok, but small road imperfections had the rear bouncing along at about 8 hertz (pretty fast!).

3) Next I put them on full soft.
a) The plowing understeer at 35 mph came back (there's a left-right-left sequence right next to my house, which is why this figure keeps showing up);
b) turn-in was reduced, but was still better than new stock (at least as I remember it)
c) highway stability was less than at 1/2 turn, but better than stock
d) ride was just wonderful! As soft and comfortable as I remember from when the car was new.
e) the stock floaty feeling was mostly gone, though again the front moved around a bit on the highway.

4) As a compromise, I went with 1/4 turn ( ~ 12 % firm), at which:
a) there was no plowing at 35 mph; I couldn't pitch the car anymore, but it tracked reasonably well if I turned in hard.
b) turn-in was between that of stock and 1 / 2 turn
c) ditto on highway stability
d) here is the interesting one: the ride was fine at low speeds, but at highway speeds the bounciness came back when driving in straight lines over very small perturbations.

Bottom line, I reproduced most of the Pyce observations, albeit at softer shock settings (I think he was more comfortable at 1/2 turn than I was, but found a little less variation in handling).
Note: I have gone back to the softest setting for now, as I am finding I am a bit of a wimp (the bounciness was really annoying!).

Oh, and the bounciness with firm shocks appeared to be coming from the tire, as explained in an earlier post (the tire is a stock 195 / 65R 15 Goodyear LS).
Last Installment to Follow


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Final Installment
BLATANT Opinions, Directed Towards the Novices
Of course everything I am writing is an opinion(!), but in the preceding I have tried to at least ground my views in terms of published data and theory. But here I will drop any attempt at objectivity, and state some pure, unsupported personal views:
Who to listen to:
For novices reading this forum and trying to learn about suspensions, there are several good posters, but three (to my mind) stand out: Daemon (I forget whether his ID is Daemon24 or Daemon42) is dead on correct in essentially everything he writes (although I do disagree with him about F/R ride rates







); Pyce appears to be a very careful experimenter who is very sensitive to the feel of his car, and who honestly and accurately reports what he feels; and everything Dick Shine has written (at least, every post of his that I have found in the archives) is absolutely supported by engineering theory, and appears to be coming from someone with more real-world experience with VW mods than most of us will ever accumulate. There are other excellent posters, so no offense to those I have not cited(!), but these three are just great (and no, I have never met or talked to any of them; I am just going by their posts).
If you really want to learn about suspensions, however, get off the web for a little while! It is very hard to sort through what is accurate on the web and what is, well, questionable, and whilst I have read some whoppers even in some supposedly-respectable books, in general a book (especially a textbook) that has to be edited, vetted, and approved by a real bricks and mortar publisher is going to be a lot more reliable than the vast majority of what you will read on the internet or in most car magazines. The books cited at the top of this multi-post letter are excellent, and there are others as well. Read the books, learn the concepts, and then come chat with the regulars on this forum to find out what works in practice and what does not, and you have the best chance of finding a suspension set up that you love.
The Shine SRS Suspension and Dick Shine:
I probably will never buy the full-on Shine kit, as my VW is my nice little everyday car, and I am now a wimp with regards to ride quality. But everything about that kit (at least everything I have been able to learn about it) is consistent with sound engineering theory, and his claims for SRS performance are entirely plausible; far more plausible, in fact, than those made for the vast majority of other kits out there.
Now, Dick Shine sometimes seems to be a controversial figure on this forum, and his statements can be a little strong, but for the novices who read these lists, please do pay attention to what he says. The Shine setup is directed towards a particular goal, and is structured on a particular philosophy (that have been exhaustively discussed elsewhere on this forum), and it is very important that one understands what that goal & philosophy are, as otherwise the comments that Shine makes can seem a little too sweeping. But if you understand the context, the Shine postings are absolutely dead on.
In Praise of OEM Engineers
It is a lot of fun to take a car and start modifying it, and if your chief joys lie in the act of modifying and having a car that is unique and personal to yourself, by all means have fun! But if your goal lies primarily in performance, particularly in the area of suspension and handling, then you should know that a lot of us who have been doing this for a while (not all of us, but many) eventually wind up gravitating to the view that the best modification to a street car is one that is as close to stock as possible. Of course, if you are starting with something like an early 90s Chevy Cavalier, a Hyundai Accent, or some other such horror, replacing absolutely everything is probably an excellent idea! But with a well-engineered, quality automobile (and as much as people knock the A4 Golf / Jetta platform and its twist beam rear axle, it is really a pretty fine car), less is frequently more.
(Skip the next paragraph if you like; it has nothing to do with VWs
When I first got into suspension mods (good grief, it was 15 years ago!), I did what a lot of the non-regular Vortex posters seem to be doing: I talked with aftermarket vendors, read enthusiast magazines, compared notes with other newbies I met in the shops and stores, and eagerly bought parts that were promised to improve the handling of my car. The resulting mess took a couple of years to sort out, during which time I purchased three different sets of lowering springs, 3 sets of antiroll bars, 2 sets of performance shocks, lowering blocks, negative-camber wishbones, nylatron bushings, polyurethane bushings, assorted braces, shims, packers, and pads; I clamped my springs to increase the rate without changing ride height, set them in the kitchen oven to lower the ride height without changing spring rate (my Mom was absolutely thrilled by that one), played with toe settings, tires, wheels : and overall I basically ruined the ride and handling of my car. It was immense fun, and I wouldn’t have traded the experience for anything, but it took an inadvertent trip through a local soybean field (a combination of lift-throttle oversteer, inexperience, and a set of $5 nylatron rear shackle bushings that the vendor swore would improve my handling) to make me realize that (1) I didn’t know what I was doing, and (2) I would eventually get hurt if I didn’t figure things out. And so, I took the Skip Barber 3-day course at Lime Rock to learn how to drive properly, and invested in a lot of books to start sorting fact from fiction. I eventually learned how and why the different parts of the suspension have to work together, and after another year of experimentation I arrived at what was essentially an SCCA race spec suspension. The car then handled wonderfully (I could easily outcorner stock Beemers on exit ramps and the like), and it surprisingly even rode fairly comfortably, but as a recreational sports car it was a miserable failure: at anything under seven tenths it was simply not fun to drive (a race car is designed to be driven hard), but when driven hard enough to be actually fun, my passengers (particularly pretty female passengers) were invariably terrified. Not excited, or impressed, but terrified. So I spent the next year dialing things back, and finally settled on an extremely fun suspension that (I ruefully noted) exactly reproduced the factory 1963 Le Mans tuning spec, which simply involved a moderately stiffer front spring and antiroll bar, only with better shocks. Bottom line, it is fun to experiment, but the original factory designers know what they are doing, and keeping things within the original design intent has a lot to be said for it.
On tires:
Last blatant opinion: I am undoubtedly showing my age here, but I think wide sticky tires are overrated. They are certainly (if used properly) faster, but if the objective is to have fun (as opposed to win races or to cover ground as quickly as possible), it is often more enjoyable to use moderately-sized tires in conjunction with a well-balanced suspension that allows a little bit of roll. True, such a set up does not have the glued-to-the-road, driving-on-rails feeling that sticky rubber can give you, but one of the rapidly-being-forgotten joys of open-road motoring is a car that really uses its tires at moderate speeds, that gives the driver loads of slip-angle feedback and which drifts smoothly and progressively, and whose performance envelope has fuzzy edges, so that you still have lots of real-world safety margin even as the chassis really begins to work. Such a car is a lot of fun on real roads; it gives you an opportunity to really drive (balancing the car with the throttle and brakes, building up real slip angles) at sane speeds, as opposed to passively carrying you on a high speed roller coaster ride.
(Note that the chief suspension engineer of the new Mini was quoted as saying the Mini handles best on the stock 175 / 65 15 tires, and that he was sorry to see the (requested by Marketing) 16 and 17 inch wide performance rubber become a sport option just before launch.)
The problem of course is that since performance enthusiasts all want wide tires, there are relatively few moderate to skinny tires that are optimized for performance (i.e., stiffer sidewalls, crisper steering response, progressive slip and breakaway characteristics). But if you can find such a tire in the stock 15 or 16 inch size, it can make for a very sweet-handling and rewarding car for road driving.

REQUEST
Thank you to all of you Vortexers for all the wonderful posts, and please keep posting your experiments. If any of you have experience with either:
(1) the stock sport / GTI suspension, but with Konis front and rear;
(2) stock sport suspension (with or without Konis or Bilsteins), but with a slightly stronger front spring,
(3) moderately stiffened springs front and rear, but at close to stock ride height,
I would love to hear your findings (including final ride height), as I have to decide what spring to put on when I do my front shocks later this year. Thanks very much!

FINAL THANKS
Oh, and finally an apology (if one is needed) for this incredibly long post. If it makes any difference, the history of this post is that I sent Pyce an email letter detailing some suspension theory that would account for his posted findings, and he suggested that I post the email to this thread so that others in the Vortex community can see it. And so, after substantial editing and elaborating so that the letter hopefully makes some sense to non-engineers, that is what I’ve done. It is the first post I have ever made to any internet forum, and it might well be my last for some time (this here new fangled internet thingy is not what I really do with my time!). Again, if I have managed to break any rules or customs, or have offended any persons in any way at all, I do ask your forgiveness and patience with me, as this sort of posting is not something I am very familiar with. In any event, thank you to all of you in the Vortex community for your very interesting and fun discussions, and I wish you all the best in your driving and tuning endeavors.
Cheers.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Why here? There is a testing forum for this:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zeroforum?id=40

Sorry and thanks for posting your comments -- that's what I get for being a dumbass







and not reading the entire thread before posting.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 1:37 PM 1-7-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_.......Who to listen to:.......

I think we have to be honest (and fair) here ....... You may like the few things I have said here and there, but this really does not make me an expert. I have been here for about two years now and I may not be so young in age, but I am still a newbie, and honestly, have very little to offer. There are many who do really know how things work and know much more theory than me. I am just trying to learn, and have chosen the hard way (buying, experimenting, losing time and cash, gaining knowledge)....simple as that. Honestly, I am not where you are trying to put me







I do really appreciate your posts (what a first-timer, never seen such a strong entry on the vortex!) and even more the fact that you contacted me, instead of contacting someone maybe even more appropriate. But I am still far behind and can not stand any near many of the people here......
You letter thought (posted all above) is by far the deepest explanation someone had ever tired to give me, and I am really having hard time to find the right words as to express how thankful I am about that someone (you), somewhere, spent all this time to put such a write-up together and send it to a perfect stranger, in an attempt to help, to transfer knowledge, to show some light! You are one unique man and I hope we will keep in touch for long time!
Truly amazed: peter pyce


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Hey man, AWSOME JOB. That was the most complete suspension post I've seen. Thanks for all the work you put into it.
Now, got a question for you about mixing mono-tube/twin-tube designs (Bilstein&Koni) on our cars. I have Bilstein Sport all around and I am pretty happy with the performance but feel like the rear is too stiff and a little bouncy. So, was wondering whether or not change the rear to Koni.
Pyce has already done it and he's happy with the result. However, he doesn't race or track the car. I go to track events and wanna have a setup that can be decent on the track as well as street. So, if Konis have slower turn-in in the rear than front Bilstein's, what could this do to handling of the car (at least in theory)? BTW, I have Nuespeed Sport springs which are 25% stiffer than stock both rear and front. Thnx http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Next to Last Installment
Ok, it looks like I should avoid quotation marks and apostrophes... : ) The language is going to be a little stiff, as I cannot (can’t) use contractions, so please forgive me if I sound like an elderly librarian....(!)


It's not that you can't use quotation marks and apostrophes, It's that you can't use what are called smart quotes and apostrophes. These are the ones that are directional (curve left or right) You can turn this off in Word's preferences.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

Alex, work on the buffers first! It is the chepaest and fastest way and you may like it and leave it like that. And if does not work, put them back. Simple as that..... 
Also, are you sure the Neuspeed Sport is only 25% stiffer than stock?


_Modified by pyce at 10:27 AM 1-8-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, work on the buffers first! It is the chepaest and fastest way and you may like it and leave it like that. And if does not work, put them back. Simple as that..... 
Also, are you sure the Neuspeed Sport is only 25% stiffer than stock?
_Modified by pyce at 10:27 AM 1-8-2004_

I am gonna do that soon, but was wondering about the shocks as well. Yes, Nuespeed is FOR SURE 25% stiffer. It's 225 front, and 160 rear. I think stock is 180 front and 130 rear.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Something is fishy .... The nubers look more like the SofSport.


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

The Neuspeed Sport and Sofsport are the same rate. The only difference is how much your car is lowered. (As someone else said, the Sofsports should have been called Tallsports)


_Modified by Stealth Car at 11:39 PM 1-8-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

I swear I once read an article from someone here who tried both and said that the Sports and SofSports are like H&R Race and H&R Sports...... I guess he was wrong then, so I was wrong to listen to him. Thanks.


_Modified by pyce at 3:45 PM 1-8-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I swear I once read an article from someone here who tried both and said that the Sports and SofSports are like H&R Race and H&R Sports...... I guess he was wrong then, so I was wrong to listen to him. Thanks.


Sport and Sofsport are the same rate with different lowering, Nuespeed Race is a little bit higher spring rate (not sure by how much) and the lowest.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Maybe the guy meant NS SofSport and NS Race, but made a typo and no one corrected him, so it passed for "veritas". Cool, good you guys do not keep quiet http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

since there is no single "stock" spring rate there can be no single % more than stock. A 24V, Jetta has a front spring almost as stiff as a shine spring, something like 6 coil .535 while a 2.0 Golf may have a 7 coil .490 spring, which maybe 40% lighter. 
So any generic quote about A4 springs over stock springs can't be made. Same goes for a Shine setup. Guy with a 337 puts SRS on his front may go UP .5 inches. Guy with Jetta put SRS on his front will go DOWN .25 and the rear upto say .75+ with 200 lbs-in rears. So does SRS lower the car, well yes, uh no, I mean yes but only in the rear. Since there is no "stock" standard height their can be no standard quote on how high the car will sit. Is it a 24v, GTI, 337, Golf, NB, Jetta, VR6, 2.0 et will make a HUGE difference in height change.
I'm sure the lion's share of sports springs are NOT stiffer than the stiffest OEM springs. Just lower. I had a list from Japan with the Aftermarket A4 springs and the wire sizes used were all 12.5mm (stock TDI) or 13 mm (stock VR6) for the front. The only exception was the SRS. 
Alex just mic you springs and count the coils, you will then have a GOOD idea how stiff the spring is.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_..... A 24V, Jetta has a front spring almost as stiff as a shine spring, something like 6 coil .535 while a 2.0 Golf may have a 7 coil .490 spring, which maybe 40% lighter..... 

Oldman, good point! I have a guy here with 24V V6 Jetta, stock. We exchange our cars in the parking lot and I must say that the 24V is really significantly better than let's say our company car (which is Golf 2.0), but I really think the 24V is not any near the Shine feel. I would say it is somehow in the middle......... Now, if you say the 24V front spring is almost as stiff as the Shine, and the ride height is there too (as the 24V is jacked up almost as the Shine) in the front - then how can the big difference be explained? Yes, I realize the shocks do a lot too, but the shock do great to slow down the initial leaning. Once you are in the middle of a long (270 degree) off-ramp, and you do not work with the steering wheel (constant radius), then the shock is out of the equation (we presume the car is really steady and the road super flat, and I really have 4 off-ramps like this here!)....... So, in this scenario, the 24V still leans significantly more than the Shine. And yes, I got sway bar, but he has 17", and do not forget, I am 337 rear too, so stock thing...... What do you think?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_since there is no single "stock" spring rate there can be no single % more than stock. A 24V, Jetta has a front spring almost as stiff as a shine spring, something like 6 coil .535 while a 2.0 Golf may have a 7 coil .490 spring, which maybe 40% lighter. 
So any generic quote about A4 springs over stock springs can't be made. Same goes for a Shine setup. Guy with a 337 puts SRS on his front may go UP .5 inches. Guy with Jetta put SRS on his front will go DOWN .25 and the rear upto say .75+ with 200 lbs-in rears. So does SRS lower the car, well yes, uh no, I mean yes but only in the rear. Since there is no "stock" standard height their can be no standard quote on how high the car will sit. Is it a 24v, GTI, 337, Golf, NB, Jetta, VR6, 2.0 et will make a HUGE difference in height change.
I'm sure the lion's share of sports springs are NOT stiffer than the stiffest OEM springs. Just lower. I had a list from Japan with the Aftermarket A4 springs and the wire sizes used were all 12.5mm (stock TDI) or 13 mm (stock VR6) for the front. The only exception was the SRS. 
Alex just mic you springs and count the coils, you will then have a GOOD idea how stiff the spring is. 

I totally agree with you. But I trust Nuespeed and their spring rate numbers. For instance you cannot get H&R rates from anyone! Nuespeed definately looked thicker than the OEM springs on my GTI (whatever they are) also I tested them by putting weight on it before install and were definately stiffer.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

24v VR6 and trans is REALLY heavy, so its spring relation in weight vs rate I'm sure is no better than any other GLI / GTI / NB. I'm just saying that if you took out the 24V GLI spring and put it into a 2.0 Golf you would have near Shine type of front end stiffness. So a guy that tosses in say Neuspeed springs on a VR6 24V may have a significantly LOWER spring rate than he had stock and the car may also sit significantly LOWER. A guy with a 2.0 Golf toss in the same Neuspeed springs he is going to sit higher than the 24 V guy, and the rate would be higher than stock. So one guy just caused his car to lean more and the other lean less. One would be an upgrade, one a down grade.
Makes you wonder about the factory "sports springs" how can VW sell the same light springs for all applications? I'd hate to think what VW "sports springs" would be like installed on a VR6 24V Jetta.
In reality the NB / Golf / Jetta: 2.0 to VR6 are NOT the same cars yet the aftermarket sells the same springs for them ( in general), cause they fit, not cause they "work". 
For instance look how sensative the A4 body is to rear spring rate. A Jetta wagon is going to ride a whole lot better with the same sports springs vs a Golf. So a Golf 2.0 buys the springs / shocks says his ride is bouncy, a Jetta guy buys them, same roads, same wheels, says that the ride is smooth.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_ ......In reality the NB / Golf / Jetta: 2.0 to VR6 are NOT the same cars yet the aftermarket sells the same springs for them ( in general), cause they fit, not cause they "work".........

I love this quote!
Man, we HAVE to meet one day!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

I worked in the bay area for a few years as a computer engineer. I raced GLH-S Dodge Omni and I also had several BMW sports coupes, this was in the mid 80s. Back then the GLH-S was the second fastest car just slightly slower than GN. Chip, filter exhaust I did a 14.2 on street tires. My BMW coupes were for looks, I had trip-webers on one and dual web down drafts on the other. 
GLH-S are identical to VW on suspension, the factory rear sway bar was a welded on job like my home made RSB. GLH-S all came OEM with Koni shocks. I met Carol once, he asked if I had a "real" GLH-S and I said of course. His kid is really good looking, but I'm sure she is an old lady by now. Back then street fighting with M sport BMW, and GNs along ElCamino reale (sp) was the thing, 5.0 Mustangs still had 2V carbs back then at 175 HP. 
So I don't have lots of VW experience but I do have lots of Omni building and since the suspension is identical, I feel that I have YEARS of expertise. In fact IMO my TDI is just a better safer more fuel efficient version of my GLH-S, at least my VW does not burn though wire harnesses ever few years. Of course there are guys now pushing 350 HP form the Dodge 8v motor and 450 form the 16v 2.4 liter.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

although I agree, from the tuner shop owner and manufacturer's point, it makes no economic sense since the percentage of people that can tell the difference is so minute... and thus irrelevant - like ourselves.


----------



## VR6ix (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

Great thread, keep it going with new insights.
Has anyone looked at the Sport Spindle from H2Sport? I'd like a Jetta to have similar suspension performance to the Shine kit, but marginally lowered for aesthetics. I'm pretty far away from doing any upgrades, tho ...







and I certainly want to do it right the first time.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (VR6ix)*

Tomorrow will do another swap, but this time will try something more interesting








Tonight, in an atempt to understand how and why exactly the ride comfort is better when the rear is taller, I put back the Stock Rear springs (took out the 337 Rears) and YES, in a distance of more than 1.000 miles I can confirm the feelings from when we started this topic. Similar rate springs (337 and Stock) but the taller one gives noticeably more comfort..... 
Before the swap I was thinking about how much weight really shifts from the front to the rear when we lower the rear? I know sounds idiotic to look for the cause in there, but at the same time got really curious about this...... So, found a pretty good industrial scale (those for the trucks) and went to weight the F/R ratio of the car with 337 Rear springs first. Here is what I got:
Jetta GLS half tank - 3040 lb.
Front - 58,96%
Rear - 41,04%
Not that bad, haaaa! I always thought (read somewhere too) that we were deep in the sixties numbers for the front, etc....
So, go home, take out the 337 and put the Stocker Rear springs. This lifts the rear about 1" 1/4. Yes, I am not kidding, the 337 lower more than one inch. But anyway, back to the scale and guess what? Only miserable 20 lb shifted to the front! I somehow was thinking it would be more.....
So, at this point, I believe the whole issue with the comfort when taller is what Oldman said few pages ago - The angle that the arms have with the road (looking from the side of the car). Even stock the arms are already past the parallel (line between pivot points and end wheel center) Basically, the wheel's center is higher than the pivot point. The lower we go, the more the wheel's center goes UP and towards the front of the car. So, when the wheel hits a hole, idealy we would have (from side view) the wheel trying to move form 4 o'clock to 3 o'clock, but actually as the arms are past that ideal (for comfort) situation, we have something like from 3 o;clock to 2 o;clock movement, so slightly forward too, and that would not result in better comfort. In the 337 case, we are even worse, going from let's say 2.30 o;clock to 1.30 o'clock, so even more towards the front and up.....
Hope this make sense and hope that I am not terribly wrong, but I really do not know what else to think about this. Fact is, the taller the rear, the more the comfort (equal springs' rates) and it is pretty noticeable too! A lot of stuff coming tomorrow.....


_Modified by pyce at 12:18 AM 1-11-2004_


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

seems correct, comfort is much better with stock springs, my spaced and clamped stock springs are stiffer than Shine 200 lbs, so next step is to remove one spacer and have the clamps 90 degrees apart so only 1/2 coil is lost instead of a full coil. My car is only .20 lower with the clamps and spacers.
337 springs are for Golfs so I would think they sit .3 lower on a Jetta.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I've always thought that the rear torsion-beam axle is the main influence on ride comfort. Stiffer (after-market) springs only worsen the effect. The rear suspension isn't truly independent, so when the rear wheels ride over a bump unevenly, both sides of the rear-end are disturbed. If you have a rear anti-sway bar, the rear suspension becomes even less independent. 
Porsche has used torsion-bar/beam suspension for years. In fact, Ferdinand (Piech's grand-daddy) invented it. My 944S also has a rear torsion-bar suspension. However, the design is completely different in that it is truly independent. Each rear wheel is connected to a separate trailing-arm, which is connected to a separate torsion-bar. The bars themselves suspends the rear-end; there're no coil-springs. There's a shock absorber at each wheel to dampen the torsion-bar's energy. 
Driving my NB and the 944S regularly over the same roads, I find the 944S more comfortable... or should I say "less disturbed" over uneven bumps, even though its suspension is stiffer. When I did my research on the NB, this is what VW's website says about the rear suspension: 
*Independent track correcting torsion beam rear axle with integrated stabilizer bar*
Boy, was I fooled!








I noticed when the trunk is loaded to say ~100-150 lbs, the rear-end is nicely dampened and feels civilized. By increasing the ratio of sprung weight over unsprung weight, the car is less disturbed. Classic Cadillac engineering! Of course, the added weight has an inverse effect on handling.










_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 4:57 AM 1-11-2004_


----------



## Galactic_Warrior (Sep 20, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

I just started reading this thread today. When I first saw the title, I didn't go in because I assumed that this was going to be another one of those non-informative posts where people throw their unsubstantiated opinions around....that's what I get for ASSuming!
Nice job by those putting substantial effort and research into this thread.
IfI may add a few comments to this thread's already extensive info...
Generally, ride quality (compliance, soft ride) has three main, user adjustable, parameters that influnce this feel: spring rate, shock damping in both directions, and suspension travel. I say user adjustable because we cannot easily or econonically change suspension geometry or design. 
By increasing ride height, you start with a lower initial spring rate. You also provide more distance for the spring/damper to absorb energy due to suspension dynamics.
This is part of the reason we are seeing light trucks ride higher than they used to. More people are demanding a nice ride from SUVs and light trucks and the OEMs are responding.
Just remember, this is not without compromise since raising the body, thus CG, can then deteriorate handling.
A general, designer's "rule of thumb" has been that the bump stop, or snubber, should start activating when the load at the wheel is about 2G, or two times the wheels full static rating (see your door label), in this case the rear axle gross weight rating, RGAWR. (I state RGAWR because one wheel is 1/2 the rear axle, then multiplied by 2g equals 1).
By using a smaller, shorter, jounce stop (either your trimming, or the "C" version), you are effectively trying to match the "2g at jounce stop" criteria to your suspension set-up. Thus, you are attempting to derive more useable travel, while increasing the spring rate and damping for improved handling.
I suspect in the long run, you may have better results by using the "C" version. I state this, because at further compression, (wheel relative to the body), the "C" version will react with greater force than the trimmed version. This may be a desired suspension trait at full compression to preserve ride quality at both ends of the suspension and the long term durability of the vehicle.
Pyce, my comments are not intended to discredit you work, as it is excellent, but rather to provide some additional insight.
Thanks for the good work!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Tonight, in an atempt to understand how and why exactly the ride comfort is better when the rear is taller, I put back the Stock Rear springs (took out the 337 Rears) and YES, in a distance of more than 1.000 miles I can confirm the feelings from when we started this topic. Similar rate springs (337 and Stock) but the taller one gives noticeably more comfort..... 


Very interesting about the F/R weiht ratio. One thing though: 337 rear spring is stiffer than stock (stock Golf and GTI). Not by much I may say but definately NOT the same. Another thing I am seeing with your 337 springs is that it seems they may have been sagged a little or something. I have actually measured 337 springs and the ride height... to the best of my measurement abilities, it's between 3/4" and 1" lowered compared to stock GTI on 17" wheels. Not sure why your 337 springs are too low! My Nuespeed is supposed to lower 1.5", it did 1.4" and side by side to 337 is about 0.4"-0.5" lower.
One added note too. As we discussed all throughout this thread, the rear buffers actually ADD to the spring rate. So, even if you have two sets of springs with the same spring rate... the lower one, in practice, will have a higher spring rate becasue of the rear buffer and its progressive rate.


_Modified by alexb75 at 1:27 PM 1-11-2004_


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_I've always thought that the rear torsion-beam axle is the main influence on ride comfort. Stiffer (after-market) springs only worsen the effect. The rear suspension isn't truly independent, so when the rear wheels ride over a bump unevenly, both sides of the rear-end are disturbed. If you have a rear anti-sway bar, the rear suspension becomes even less independent. 


When going over a bump unevenly the torsion beam has the exact same effect as an anti-sway bar does with any other rear suspension. In fact, it is the anti-roll bar. Whenever two wheels connected by an anti-rool bar go over differing pavement one wheel will always have an impact on the other wheel. Doesn't matter if the anti-roll bar takes the form of a torsion beam or a more conventional design. Same affect. And it doesn't make it any less of an "independent" suspension.


_Quote »_
Porsche has used torsion-bar/beam suspension for years. In fact, Ferdinand (Piech's grand-daddy) invented it. My 944S also has a rear torsion-bar suspension. However, the design is completely different in that it is truly independent.


The torsion beam axle and a torsion bar suspension are two completely different things. The torsion bar takes the place of the the coil spring (as you mentioned) and doesn't function as an anti-roll bar. That's why you'll still find anti-roll bars on a car with torsion bar springs. What torsion bars do is give you different packaging requirements than you'd have with coil springs. As an example, it can make it easier to fit a double a-arm suspension into a comfined area when you don't have to find a place to put a coil spring
HTH
Bill


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stealth Car* »_When going over a bump unevenly the torsion beam has the exact same effect as an anti-sway bar does with any other rear suspension. In fact, it is the anti-roll bar. Whenever two wheels connected by an anti-rool bar go over differing pavement one wheel will always have an impact on the other wheel. Doesn't matter if the anti-roll bar takes the form of a torsion beam or a more conventional design. Same affect. And it doesn't make it any less of an "independent" suspension.

True, but the size of that beam in the Mk4 rear suspension is huge compared to most anti-sway bars. I've driven the last generation Honda Civic which had both front and rear double-wishbones design with anti-sway bars. The rear-end doesn't jolt as easily as the Mk4's. The only VW that has a lush ride, even with a sporty set-up, is the Passat... and now the Touareg and Phaeton. Independent suspension gives you more room to tune. 

_Quote »_The torsion beam axle and a torsion bar suspension are two completely different things. The torsion bar takes the place of the the coil spring (as you mentioned) and doesn't function as an anti-roll bar. That's why you'll still find anti-roll bars on a car with torsion bar springs...

So there're NO torsion bars? The torsion beam acts as an anti-sway bar that also helps tracking? 
Thanks for the clarification. 


_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 2:55 PM 1-11-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_...One added note too. As we discussed all throughout this thread, the rear buffers actually ADD to the spring rate. So, even if you have two sets of springs with the same spring rate... the lower one, in practice, will have a higher spring rate becasue of the rear buffer and its progressive rate.. 

Alex, you are not paying attention







My buffers had been completely GONE since page 2 or 3 of this topic. As I am messing with ride height, I do not want variables like those buffers to interfere. According the some measurements I did, the spring will fully compress first (eventually), slightly before the shock would hit the upper mount, so there is not danger the shock's body to hit the metal. I want to fully understand what ride height gives and takes and what shocks give and take......


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

So, woke up early this morning and had been under the car till now. Here is what we have accomplished today:
1. First, a reminder that last night the 337 Rears came out and not the Stock springs are in. I could have gone back again to 337 for the next experiment, but was thinking may it is good to do it with stock springs rear, so the info would be useful for many folks that upgrade only shocks and keep the springs stock. So, we are Stock Rear, Koni 0% Stiff - Beautiful ride!
2. Next step was to put back the Bilsteins Sport Rear, in an attempt to get a "remainder" of what was the ride before and to directly try to compare with the Koni again...... It is really a "no-no" for me! It really rides OK on not so bad surfaces, but once you go over the crap - is just too much of discomfort compare with the Konis. I almost forgot what it was like to ride on Bislteins, but was quickly reminded







The interesting part was that the initial leaning when you turn in was noticeably reduced. It felt almost like having slightly stronger springs, but of course, just initially. Nice feeling thought. But I am done with Bilsteins, at least not in this car...
3. At this point I was thinking "how much really the Bilsteins help the initial leaning compare to the Konis?"..... I got some feelings, but it is not easy to quantify them, so next step was to actually keep the Bisltein on the Right Rear, and put back the Koni 0% Stiff on the Left Rear (







) Went for a drive, and it was fun because I could hear the rattles from the Right and the silence from the Left. I know it sounds unbelievable, but you can actually feel pretty well that you have a firm shock on one side and comfy one on the other. the interesting part was that turning left (bilstein is on the right!) was quicker and with noticeably less leaning than turning right (the softer Koni can't hold it on the left)...... Pretty simple till here, because the Bisltein is harder to compress and it was pretty easy to feel that in the curves. Must say, thought, that the Bilstein's rebound is as weak as the Koni's rebound when set to 0% stiff! So, the fact that people get great turn-in with Bislteins is probably only due to the compression stiff compression on the outside shock, because the inside one in rebound does not help much (therefore my right turns were unchanged in lean - koni soft compress, bilstein soft rebound)....
4. Pull out the Bisltein (Rear Right) and put a Koni, but on 25% stiff. Jus tot see how much rebound (inner wheel) would equal the strong bisltein compression (outer wheel)...Hope it makes sense here. Anyway, the first thing to notice is how the ride quality went back to comfortable. So, the rebound is 25% on the Right Rear, and turning right is much more instant and the car leans less towards the left. Turning to the left is slower and leans more, but we knew that already as the left shock is unchanged. So, the 25% rebound creates this "pull-down" that plants the car for the initial phase of the turn, and it feel almost like and instant sway bar, but we knew that too. The feeling thought, is, that the Bisltein was doing slightly better job before (being in compression on the opposite side), I mean, if you use Bisltein for the outer wheel, it will give better result than using Koni on 25% for the inner wheel.......
5. Put the Koni on 50% stiff ...... and at this point, I know many may disagree, but the bilstein kind of lost here. Koni 50% on the Rear Right makes much better turn-in and it is so planted (at least in the beginning) that feels like I have some mega-buffers in there. And the best part is that the right quality, while being quiet firm is not even close to the jarring Bisltein ride. They are just different "firm" but I can take the Koni's firm at 50% stiff, as it gives a big improvement over the 25% stiff. I almost feel that from 0% stiff to 25% stiff the change is not as dramatic as from the 25% stiff to 50% stiff..... so, people say Bilstein are better fro track use as they help turn in, and they may be right as I do not know (yet) how the front would behave, but if we talk rears, you can actually do way better with Konis, even at 50% stiff (I have yet to try the 100% stiff)..... and at the same time still have some comfort left. It is just different product. I just have to see how will the quality go with time....
6. Both sides are now Koni, both set on 25% stiff (1.4 turn), stock springs, ride is not bad and the leaning is nice. I will spend few days like this, to cool down and put some more miles, then we will see. The rear needs to go lower, but the 337 are too low for my car. I guess the ideal would be something in between, that lowers around 0,5 - 0,6 inches. (Look at the case, Shine is right about there!) Would like to check these new H&R O.E. Springs, the Rears, and see what would be like. They say it lowers the rear about half inch, could be perfect. Heard also, it is about 7-10% stiffer than stock, so it sounds very promising. Let's see..... With the stock rears can stand even more than 25% stiff from the Konis (but did not feel this good with the 337 few weeks ago!)...... so, I guess we are narrowing down the things here. Yeah, next step is slightly lower than stock springs, variation between 25 and 50% stiff, as to try what goes better with the new spring (when they arrive) and I guess the rear would be done....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Alex, you are not paying attention







My buffers had been completely GONE since page 2 or 3 of this topic. As I am messing with ride height, I do not want variables like those buffers to interfere. According the some measurements I did, the spring will fully compress first (eventually), slightly before the shock would hit the upper mount, so there is not danger the shock's body to hit the metal. I want to fully understand what ride height gives and takes and what shocks give and take...... 


I was not talking about your particular setup, I was talking in general. I must have made it more clear.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_So, woke up early this morning and had been under the car till now. Here is what we have accomplished today:
............


Great experience. So, for all this time your fronts are still Bilstein, right? How do they function in combination (Bilstein and Koni)?
Also, how much difference was there in ride/handling between rear Bilsteins/no buffer vs. stock buffers/Bilstein?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

Hi Everyone -- gosh, you've all been quite busy with this thread! If you'll forgive my batching my replies (I only have a chance to visit the forum once a week or so), here are some observations & responses to your wonderful posts:
f1forkvr6: thanks for the link to the testing site; please don't worry -- there's absolutely no offense taken, and I appreciate the suggestion!
Stealth Car: ditto for the Word suggestion; I'll try it out next time I do a Word cut & paste. Thanks very much!
Pyce: Peter, my apologies if I made you feel a little awkward by singling you out! But please don't sell yourself short: I don't know if you're an engineer, but on our project teams the most valuable members are those who come up and say "I know theory predicts A will lead to B, but I just tried A and I get C -- specifically, C1, C2, and C3, but not C4 or C5." Please keep up the great work. 
alexb75: I was going to take a shot at your question about Koni's at the rear for track work, but Pyce's most recent experiments supercede anything I'd be able to say. For what it's worth (and Oldman's and Pyce's real-world experience is worth a lot more here than my theoretical opinion), theory suggests that the rebound tunability of the Konis will have more effect on your turn in than will the Bilstein's "quicker" action, unless your particular spring/weight setup happens to be perfectly matched to the Bilsteins as they come from the factory. If the Bilsteins do happen to be perfectly matched, it might be that their quicker action would make for more precise feel & handling; alternatively, it could be there's enough slop elsewhere in the suspension (e.g., in the bushings) that the quicker shock action is largely irrelevant. Again, this is an area where the boots-on-the-ground experience supplants that of an armchair general, and I for one am really interested in what you, Pyce, Oldman, and others discover here.
Oldman: thanks for the info on the stock spring stiffnesses! I was afraid that VW might have been using a limited selection of spring coil gauges (i.e., that they have been compensating for vehicle weight variations mostly via unfitted spring height), but if the stiffnesses really do vary, one can try some creative mixing and matching! If you (or anyone else) ever put together a listing of what spring gauges and unfitted lengths are found on different models, that'd be a very useful document to have!
Pyce (Jan.11 - CG shift post): Peter, for fun I did a little back-of-the-envelope on how much weight shift a 1.25" rear drop should cause, and it came out to around 8 lbs shifted from front to back (using your initial weight figures, and assuming a 20" CG height (which is probably on the low side for our cars). It was a pretty rough calc (lots of simplifying assumptions!), but at the least it backs up your finding of an essentially insignificant fore and aft weight shift.
Regarding your observation about what lowering does to the inclination of the rear trailing arm: the inclination does something to the rear effective spring rate (what was referred to as "wheel rate" in an earlier post), though I'll have to think about it for a bit. But the really interesting thing - from a ride comfort perspective - might lie in what you observe about the rear wheels on a lowered car having to shift forwards on a bump. You might be interested to know that when radial tires were first introduced, to replace the bias and bias-belted tires of tradition, it was noted that the radials were much softer-riding than the bias plies in pure vertical motion, but much harsher with respect to longitudinal motions. Or, to put it in plain English, if a radial tire can't shift backwards when it hits bumps, it transmits a lot of impact harshness. One possible contributor to the harsh ride you're noticing with a lowered rear might be the tires' reduced ability to shift rearwards on bumps (the bushings are designed to allow some fore & aft movement (that's one reason why they're so huge on a twist beam suspension), but the tilt of the trailing arms will reduce their effect). One question here for you: when you say the rear is "harsher" when lowered, is it an impact harshness, or a generally firmer spring rate? If the former, it could be the reduction in longitudinal compliance; if the latter, then it's more likely an effective spring rate effect.
Cadenza_7o (regarding your smooth ride with 100-150 lbs in the trunk): you make an excellent point that increasing the ratio of sprung to unsprung weight generally improves ride quality, but one might also add that our VWs have a number of designed-in compromises as befit the cars' marketing role (at least on their home continent) as versatile family vehicles. In particular, the damping at the rear has to control body motions when the trunk is filled and 5 adults are sitting in the cabin. In conjunction with an okay-but-designed-to-a-cost OEM shock (which is probably less smoothly digressive than the Bilsteins or Konis -- meaning that to get enough low-velocity damping to control body motions, it probably has overly-high damping at the high piston-velocities that occur over bumps), this requirement probably leads to a bit of over-damping (at least at high piston speeds) when the car is unloaded. Again, your well-made unsprung weight explanation certainly applies(!), but this is just an additional effect at work.
Galactic_Warrior: if you'll permit me to add a little clarification/ elaboration to one of your statements, for the benefit of any novices who might be reading this thread:
"By increasing ride height, you start with a lower initial spring rate...."
For any novices who are following along: you can in fact increase or decrease ride height without changing the spring rate (e.g., by simply changing the spacing of the coils (easily done by the manufacturer during the heat-treatment phase of production)), but Galactic_Warrior is referring to what you are forced to do in practice, if you are designing a car that can actually be driven in the real world. The ride height of a sports-oriented car (SUVs might be a different case!) is largely determined by the requirement that it not bottom out when driven at speed over bumps -- if you wish to lower the spring rate, you're pretty much forced to jack up the ride height. Up the spring rate, and you can drop the car down a bit -- though alas, you then run into the problem that all the suspension geometries are optimized for the soft, stock ride height!
Stealth Car (on torsion beams): I'm with you all the way on this one! In addition to the packaging advantages of torsion bars, they also make for easy adjustment of ride height (often the bars are splined, so that raising or lowering the ride height is a simple matter of rotating the bar to the next spline -- doing so doesn't change the spring rate (well, to first order anyway), and if our GTIs had such springs, it'd be much easier to separate out ride height from spring rate effects!)
Cadenza_7o (concerning torsion beams): one can certainly understand why the VW torsion beam might appear to be stiffer than other cars' anti-roll bars -- it certainly is huge!! But if you'll forgive my differing with you a little here: the beam is an open channel section (meaning it's in the shape of a C, rather than of an O), and hence it's not as torsionally rigid as it at first appears -- indeed, it's not quite torsionally stiff enough on its own, and VW mounts an extra (solid, cylindrical) antiroll bar inside of it to make it a little stiffer. The reason for the enormous size is that the beam is, well, a beam, in that it has to have enough beam/ bending stiffness to keep the rear wheels at the right camber and toe as the trailing arms move around.
Regarding the smooth ride of non twist-beam suspensions, like that of a well-tuned double wishbone: much of that smoothness comes from the provision of longitudinal (back and forth) compliance, which was discussed a little earlier in this post. One problem with the twist beam suspension is that it's hard to give it a lot of compliance (typically via soft bushings) without introducing so much general slop into the suspension that wheel toe and camber control just falls to pieces. A nice thing about the newer rear suspension designs (such as the "control blade" set up on the Ford Focus, which is just beautifully done) is that designers have found ways of essentially decoupling longitudinal compliance from toe & camber -- or in ordinary English, the newer suspensions allow the wheels to move back and forth quite a bit over bumps, while still holding them in precise alignment. As a result they can simultaneously handle well and ride really well. Our simple, robust, space-efficient twist beams can't do that. Anyway, great observations about the differences in ride on different cars -- thanks very much for posting them!
Pyce: great experiments! Can I add my voice to alexb75's and ask you to confirm the rest of your suspension setup? (Are you still on Shine 225 fronts, with a Shine anti-roll bar?). Thanks very much!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

sure a VR6 front spring and a stock Jetta rear spring is a VERY good match for a Golf 2.0 or TDI or 1.8T. Add dampers like TC to your taste, shine RSB.
For the Jetta the VR6 front springs are good if you own a 4 banger, but as Peter is finding out there are not very many near stock height rear options: IMO I'd try turbo NB 180 HP springs, or maybe dealer sports springs for the rear only or as Peter is thinking some near OEM rear springs like H&R street? , or some spring clamps and spacers like I've done. Shine RSB.
Since the rear spring responds so well to clamps and spacers, I think clamp, spacer, clamp could yeild an ideal spring rate for like $20.00 Clamps and spacers have been VERY useful on tuning my car. I run two clamps 180 degrees apart with 2 spacers between for -1 coil on the rear and on .200 down (due to the spacer of .500) the handling is very good, like shine good, it is stiffer than shine too (200 lbs setup). but it is too stiff for comfort so I'll try two clamps 90 degrees apart with a single spacer in between for - 1/2 coil and .100 down. 
If you guys don't have VR6 springs I've found rubber spacers work well in the front of stock springs and yeild about the same rate. $7.00 from your local autozone.


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 9:31 AM 1-12-2004_


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I have cut the rubber blocks in half that were installed in the OEM front. I attribute this to Houston's roller-coaster concrete slab streets and my charging parking lot driveway aprons.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce) - experiment #3, mixed Bilstein & Koni on rear*

Hello Peter,
Really brief here (I'm late for work), but there's a potential complication with your experiment with one Koni and one Bilstein on the rear. It's possible that the better turn-in and flatter cornering you observed while turning to the left (the Bilstein was on the right rear, correct?) was due in part not to damping, but to the diagonal weight jacking you induced by installing a high pressure shock on one rear corner of the car, and not the other.
Question: do you recall how much extension force the Bilstein exerts? I have a vague recollection that it's about 30 lbs per shock, though it's been quite a while! Anyway, let's call it 30 lbs for now, as it's an easy number to work with. Since the rear wheels each support roughly 600 lbs apiece, by putting the Bilstein only on the right rear, you've increased the right rear tire loading by 5% (it's actually more complicated than that, as the right rear rises, the left front dips down, and the left rear and right front both come up a little, so that 5% imbalance gets distributed among the 4 wheels -- basically, you've increased the load on the right rear and left front tires, while decreasing the load on the left rear and right front). Hence, in a left-hand corner, the right rear tire is now carrying more load than before, while the right front tire is carrying less load (as compared to the normal state). Because (as you and everyone on this thread well know) the greater the left-right load imbalance on one end of a car, the less that end is able to supply cornering traction, your diagonal weight jacking will have made the car more eager to turn to the left. This effect should be most noticeable on initial turn in (once the car starts to really roll, the load imbalances from the springs and antiroll bars, etc, swamp out the effect of the weight jacking), and it might be really hard to distinguish from the effect of shock damping (in theory, you might be able to detect a difference in feel, as the turn-in effects from shock damping come in only after the car starts to roll (which builds up velocities in the shocks, which build up the damping forces), whilst jacking effects are essentially instantaneous...).
Oh, by the way: diagonal weight jacking tends to improve turn-in in one direction, while degrading it in the other. So the perceived difference between turning right and left is sort of twice as big as what you might expect.
Major caveat: I have absolutely zero (zilch, nada, pathetically absent) experience with weight jacking; I've not even ever talked with someone who's tried it. If you find someone who races on dirt tracks and ovals, they can tell you if the modest weight jacking you've induced here could explain your improved leftwards turn in. But I mention it because (1) it's a little surprising that the Bilsteins are that much more stiffly damped then are the Konis in compression (is it certain the compression damping is that much stiffer? Could it be the resistance you've noticed is mostly the gas pressure working to extend the shock?), and (2) usually people focus more on rebound damping than on compression to tune the handling characteristics (not that compression doesn't have an effect, but rebound is usually more important). But I can be entirely out to lunch here.







In any event, your experiments and observations are extremely interesting -- please keep them coming!
Oh no! I've got to go scrape the snow off the car and get to work (I'm really late now!). Good luck with the experiments, and I'll check in again next week. (And Oldman, thank you very much for the spring recommendations -- I owe you a response on that; next week!!)
Have a good work week, everybody!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce) - experiment #3, mixed Bilstein & Koni on rear (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Really brief here .......and I'll check in again next week. 

Oh, boy, if this is your "really brief", then I only wonder what would be if you go deep in details







And thank God you check in once in a week, because this is getting way too much of info here, and I really need more time to go through in depth and construct my questions and comments. I think at this point I will just stop and re-read the last two pages (5 and 6) and re-read again and try to put a post together as an attempt to recap all the feelings we accumulated and try to link them with the excellent theory you and the rest posted........ 
But to answer only couple of questions that I remember of:
1. Yes, I am still with Full Shine Front and I guess I will be like that till fully resolve the rear and have satisfactory answers about the combination of ride height, shock's rates and spring rates. Actually, I may never have the answer, but at least we will reach a point of "best compromise". I just believe that changes have to be made one by one, otherwise we may make a wrong judgment. Also, I really do believe that the Shine Front is absolutely the best thing for my car. Dick got the height simply right and the car is fantastic for street use. In fact, I was afraid to even touch that front because I hear people say the Bilsteins are much better for turn-in, etc....... And that is the reason I tried the combination of Koni-Bilsteins on the rear, as to get an idea (try to get an idea) about what and how much am I going to "lose" if I replace the front Bislteins with Koni. Now, the front may act in a completely different manner once I replace them, but IF the pattern I found in the rear is going to repeat in the front, then it would be pretty safe to say that with adjusting the Koni's Rebound between 25% and 50% stiff, the Bilstein's initial turn-in "hardness" can be reproduced. Which leads to the next comment I would like to make, about your last post and explanation of the diagonal transfer.....
2. Yes, it is entirely possible that the sharper turn-in (Left) with the Bilstein on Rear Right is not because of the firmer shock, but because of the weight transfer to the opposite (diagonal) corner. And actually, I agree with you, it is wrong to describe that feel as "sharper turn-in", because the actually turn in seems the same, but what happens is that the car remains flatter for some time after it is already in the turn, so it gives the feeling that the car got inserted better in the curve, but actually the car just did not lean as much as before. The better turn in (I guess) would be if the front curves more for a given steering wheel input, am I right? And if so, then I must say I never had change in that, because the front always behave in the same way. So, here is not really actual "turn in" we are talking about, but an affect that feels like that. I mean, you can play with real turn in by adjusting the toe and that would be real turn-in improvement, where we actually do something to the front.....am I right? So, what I am experiencing here is a more "flat-feeling-like-instant-massive-sway-bar" for the initial part of the curve. I am usually very smooth driver and never "throw" the car, but for this experiment I was trying to turn in the curves in a more aggressive way, and that is precisely where the shocks (to me) made the big difference. Things like emergency changing lane on the highway are the perfect scenario where I felt the difference between the different settings....... So, I do not know whether the better "initial steering feel" (let's call it this way and abandon the turn-in term for this time) is coming because of the firm shock or because of the weight transfer to the opposite diagonal corner...... But what I know is that the feel (and results) you can achieve with a Bilstein Sport on one corner can be reproduced with Koni Yellow Sport between 25% and 50% stiff mounted on the other corner! The only difference is that when the Koni is matched to get you to those same results, it is still more comfortable on the street than the Bilstein.
3. I did not know that racers use more rebound to tune up the cars, but it starts making sense to me now. Looks like (feels like) to me that it is a more "sensitive" way to control initial curve lean. I actually do not know what would be like to use compression as to tune the same thing, but I guess that it is going to be more "painful" tune-up as the car is going to be less comfortable for any given setting if equal results are to be achieved. I guess I will go full stiff one of these days as to see what that gives and have even better picture of how much a very stiff rebound would give. The only comment I can make here is that I tried to put them on 100% stiff while playing in the garage (but did not put them in the car) and at that point I was not able to pull the shaft out, it was like welded inside! I know it is not a "scientific" way to say much about the stiffness, but still it gave me an idea that is going to be scary stiff. One more note: I feel (but can't prove) that the Rebound Adjustment on the Konis is not very linear. I felt that between 0% and 12.5% the difference is not as much as the difference between 12.5% and 25%. I guess the rebound force (for some reason) is a slight curve and some time goes over and some times under the ideal "straight line" between the 0% and 100%.... Hope it makes sense what I said. I may be wrong too....
4. Alex, I can not answer your question about Bilstein with and without Buffers, because I do not have buffers. If you remember, they were sliced slowly to the point where I removed the remaining. Once I get the right spring (if I ever), I will purchase the "C" type Buffers and then we will do the experiment again, so we will know. I just do not want to think "buffers" now








I have few things to say to few other folks here, great replies everybody, we are accumulating great information and I hope we keep going this way and eventually figure out many things we did not know before. I just need some time to re-read all this again as I do not want to "miss" somebody's point. Thanks everybody here! Really great work, I appreciate it very much!More later ......


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_ For the Jetta the VR6 front springs are good if you own a 4 banger, but as Peter is finding out there are not very many near stock height rear options: IMO I'd try turbo NB 180 HP springs, or maybe dealer sports springs for the rear only or as Peter is thinking some near OEM rear springs like H&R street? , or some spring clamps and spacers like I've done. Shine RSB.

FYI: the springs - front & rear - on the NB Turbo S (180 Hp) are the same as those on any NB 1.8T (150 Hp) with the "Sport Package".
Here's the color code / # or coils:
Front: 5 pinks / 5 turns 
Rear: 2 blues + 1 silver / 5 turns


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_1. Yes, I am still with Full Shine Front and I guess I will be like that till fully resolve the rear and have satisfactory answers about the combination of ride height, shock's rates and spring rates.... Also, I really do believe that the Shine Front is absolutely the best thing for my car. Dick got the height simply right and the car is fantastic for street use. In fact, I was afraid to even touch that front because I hear people say the Bilsteins are much better for turn-in, etc....

Pyce - I've been considering on-and-off about using just the front Shine springs. I'm asking because I know of no NB'er with the Shine setup. Currently, my NB springs are the OEM Sport Package and they're coupled with Bilstein HD. These springs, as said above, are the same as those on the NB Turbo S (180 Hp). My objective is to reduce some of the front-outer wheel plow when canyon carving. What kind of ride quality am I looking at with front springs by Shine, rear OEM springs (Sport Package) and HDs? 
Thanks...


_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 2:47 PM 1-12-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

Cadenza, I think there are few folks even on this topic with NB and full Shine, so I am sure someone will come in and tell you more. All I can say is (and what many have found before me) that the rear is really more important for the comfort. I am expecting your NB to behave "almost like" the Jetta, and if that is correct, then I think you are not going to experience bad comfort, but the front is going to be fantastic! It is a trade off, but in case of the front, I can maybe say that you gain much more handling than you lose comfort. It is kind of the other way around for the rear (at least to me). And if you really can't stand the ride quality, sell the front Shine to Oldman







BTW, I have never seen a NB with Shine, so, I do not know how much exactly lowers-lifts. All I know if that you guys are already lower than all of us in stock form. Also, if I am not wrong, I heard someone once said that all NB have "sport package" suspension by default. Hope someone would confirm..... Actually, it would be great if you go Shine way (Front) so we can compare notes here....
I just purchased a set of H&R O.E. springs. They should arrive not later than Wednesday, and I am having a lot of hopes there! I hope the drop is about 0.5 inch in the rear, not more not less. I also hope that it is close to stock spring rate. Spoke to H&R this afternoon and of course they did not say the spring's rate, but the gentleman told me that they (O.E.) are softer than the Sport, and slightly stiffer than stock. At the same time Mike from parts4vws told me that H.R Sport is the same rate as H&R O.E., just the OE is taller (more distance between the coils, but everything else the same). He said this is info he got directly from H&R...... I do not know who has it right, but we will find soon. BTW, anyone got H&R O.E. here? Any comments, links to posts, etc would be great! I tried to search, but the search engine ignores short words like "H" and "R", so I do not know how to get into eventual posts on the matter.... Thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

on the rear 5 turns complete end to end? Hmm sounds very stiff. Anyway for you to get the wire size?
I would think slapping in a VR6 .513 6 turn or a .55 6.75 turn 4bue/silver (24V GLI) front spring would be a good setup. 
Sliced the rubber in half? I ran over a bed on the freeway, one of them wooden futon deals, I was airborn, ripped out the brake cables etc, and my rubber dampers were still there. 
Just one more reason not to lower your car. I'm sure if I had a coil over slammer suspension. I would have just plowed the bed and whipped out the front end / engine / oil pan etc.

also cadenza_7o wrote _ I've always thought that the rear torsion-beam axle is the main influence on ride comfort. _
Here I agree, try a Volvo, Focus or any independent arm rear suspension, they are smoother. I would also add that it is not the rear spring the changes ride as much as RSB. The aftermarket RSB makes the rear think it is a live axle, any bump on one side of the car will try to pickup the entire rear and compress both springs. Starts getting crazy when you have a stock high perf bar and a Shine bar. It really is like a live axle at this point when it comes to jounce induced bumps on one side of the car. Your trying to flex a large beam, a large factory bar and a HUGE aftermarket bar all from one tire. Of course if you hit a speed bump straight on the whole thing just moves up. but any pot hole or drive way taken at a angle you can really feel the bounce. 
My volvo just stays planted, I got these bad bumps in front of my street where I come off the highway. My Volvo takes these with control, my TDI with RSB is just all over the place in the rear it is crazy. yes worst with stiffer rear springs but crazy with RSB and really crazy with stiff rear springs and RSB.










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 12:09 AM 1-13-2004_


----------



## ~cia~ (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

I gotta say one thing, there are (2) threads in this Suspension Forum that have kept me up way past my bed time almost every time i look at it. The info has been very informative, somewhat confusing but nevertheless, i can say i learned something. It is very appreciated guys! ~ cheers~








However, here's my dilema. I'm am currently looking for the same characteristics as pyce is looking for in a suspension system because I too drive in a city where the pot holes and big-gap expansion joints rule the roads.
I was all "gun-ho" to upgrade my suspension until i came across this thread and the one at the top of the forum about A-arm suspension geometry. After reading these threads I actually became a little discouraged to proceed with the mods.
I have gone as far as adding a rear swaybar and have a set of Eibach Pro-kit springs sitting in my closet. Only the the shocks were left to purchase but that's when i came across these threads. 
I'm asking for a little guidance from those who contributed their knowledge and opinions in this thread on what i can possible do to improve my suspension and performance without going too far.








Also, not to get off topic about Shock/spring combo's, but i do consider it related,
has it just been overlooked or is there something not being mentioned (like the buffer stops) about these SportSpindles that H2S is offering? 
It seems to correct any concerns about suspension geometry when lowering MK IV's. 
I'm not too familiar with spindle drops so if someone can share any pros/cons with sort of setup, i would appreciate it! 
More info can be found in their PDF http://www.h2sport.com/SportSpindle.pdf


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Cadenza, I think there are few folks even on this topic with NB and full Shine, so I am sure someone will come in and tell you more. All I can say is (and what many have found before me) that the rear is really more important for the comfort. I am expecting your NB to behave "almost like" the Jetta, and if that is correct, then I think you are not going to experience bad comfort, but the front is going to be fantastic! It is a trade off, but in case of the front, I can maybe say that you gain much more handling than you lose comfort.

Hmmm... I will search again here and newbeetle.org to see if any NB has been Shine'd. I appreciate your summary regarding the comfort -vs- handling trade-off. It sounds positive! 

_Quote »_BTW, I have never seen a NB with Shine, so, I do not know how much exactly lowers-lifts. All I know if that you guys are already lower than all of us in stock form. Also, if I am not wrong, I heard someone once said that all NB have "sport package" suspension by default. Hope someone would confirm.....

You're almost right...
Ride height: You're correct - in stock form the NB is lower than Golf/Jetta. The front-end about 1/2" lower than the rear. 
Springs: From what I've read and experienced, the regular NB springs are slightly stiffer than those of the regular Golf/Jetta. The NB also come with 16" wheels instead of 15". On a few occasions, my loaner cars were (non-sport) Golf/Jettas with 15" and 16" wheels. Both models felt softer, with the Jetta being the most comfortable. This observation is consistent with others who've driven/owned both Golf/Jetta and a NB. VW engineers decided on these specifications to offset the NB's higher CG.


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_on the rear 5 turns complete end to end? Hmm sounds very stiff. Anyway for you to get the wire size?

I would have to double-check. Wire size - where can I buy a cheap micrometer?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

cia - I want to tell you few things, but no time for long post now... will talk alter...
Cadenza - my wife drives a Bug too, so I will check the colors tonight. So, we know whether ALL beetles have the same "sport package" thing like someone said before...


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce) - bump stops*

Hi Pyce -- this time I really will be brief(!)








I've just noticed you're running without any rear bumpstops at all. I'm sure others have told you and you must already be well aware, but you do realize the several things (all very unpleasant) that can happen if you hit a bump at speed (particularly while cornering) and actually get to coil-bind, right? Please do be careful out there until you get some sort of bumpstop back on! (And sorry to sound like a nervous nellie -- we just don't want anyone to get hurt!







)
Cheers!


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Cadenza - my wife drives a Bug too, so I will check the colors tonight. So, we know whether ALL beetles have the same "sport package" thing like someone said before...

Only the Turbo S and those with the Sport Package had the following:
- 17" rims
- Stiffer springs
- Stiffer anti-swaybars
- Stiffer dampers (not sure on this one)
According to Road & Track, the Turbo S (or NBs with the Sport Package) had a skidpad of 0.82g / slalom speed of 64.5mph. The regular NB's skidpad is 0.78g / slalom is 59mph. Car & Driver also reported similar results.
The springs on regular NB are stiffer than regular Golf/Jetta's, but they don't have the specs of the Sport Package.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_
I would have to double-check. Wire size - where can I buy a cheap micrometer?

Hi Cadenza,
You can wrap a narrow strip of paper around the spring coil, mark the overlap with a pen, measure the distance between pen marks, and divide by pi (3.14159) to get the wire diameter. Crude, but an effective poor man's micrometer...


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hi Cadenza,
You can wrap a narrow strip of paper around the spring coil, mark the overlap with a pen, measure the distance between pen marks, and divide by pi (3.14159) to get the wire diameter. Crude, but an effective poor man's micrometer...

good idea! thanks!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

also you can get one from Harbor freight for like $7.00, autozone was not that much more. There are plastic ones for about $5.00.
Peter since chat can't take my LONG post:
Mini, that is a nice car. I'd love to redesign the supercharger for a whipple lysholm type and up the * cold * boost . 
The problem with the VW is the twist beam, same as on a dodge and on a Nissan. The stiffer RSB really effects how she rides over pot holes (one side motion). I've gone thru two different home made RSB and now I have the shine, and for each upgrade the pot hole type ride has gone WAY down. I may pull the Shine RSB and just run the stock rear springs with clamp/ spacer /clamp 90 degrees apart for 1/2 coil isolation. 
I was 100% ok with the ride with home made RSB stock rear springs with 1.75 inch spacers (2 per side). Handling was good too. Problem there was that trail brake oversteer. Hence I decided to go to .5 inch spacers and clamp the springs to drop the butt .200 inches. For some reason clamping makes the rear spring WAY too stiff. 
Hayden, lives in Austin and he runs spacers that are twisted in, they are metal and he likes them. I thought they would just fall out. He is a young guy and drives like a young guy, yet they have been there more than a year! He has a Golf TDI with OZ rims like mine and Yoko 100 tires.

So once again I was 100% happy with the ride and performance of stock springs with DIY 1.75 spacers (autozone only sells 1-1.5 and 2.5 inch spacers). Home made RSB. The ONLY problem was trail brake over steer when pushed to the limit. To solve the problem I've ruined my ride, spent lots of money and time. I may just go back to the spacers and the thicker Shine RSB (even more oversteer BTW) and be done with it. Cause I'm thinking that TBOS is more caused by overall design and fooling around with clamps, RSB, etc ain't going to fix it.
We know Shine fixes some TBOS by running STIFF front springs and dropping the but like 1 to 1.5 inches in the rear ( IMO the stiff rear spring rate is just to prevent bottoming the shocks /car). Question is do I want a suspension to look like this or ride like this to fix a problem that happens only when pushed to the limit and requires braking. IMO you should never encounter the problem if you drive within the limits of road conditions (what fun is that?). 
This TBOS is really a big problem given any type of emergency situation.
This is what I think I saying and thinking:
If you are a young guy and got some good tires and really push the car. You really need to run a full shine with the 200 lbs rears too as this is the only setup that will help keep you out of trouble during TBOS conditions.
If you are an oldman and just want better performance, and you understand the limits of the suspension. Then you should be running something like stock rear springs or stock springs with spacers and maybe a RSB like a Nuespeed 25mm set to mid setting. I've gone into the reasons before about too stiff a bar and soft springs. This suspension will exhibit bad (not as bad as bone stock) TBOS when pushed and then braked. But it will ride OEM stock or nearly so. 
So I’m thinking optimal was:
VR6 front springs, stock rear springs with 1.75 rubber spacers, Bilstein TCs plain version, Nuespeed 25 mm RSB set to mid level.
I don’t have a Nuespeed RSB, I have a Shine so I have to run it or trade it for a NS 25 mm. I think with the spacers in the rear springs they should be stiff enough to accomidate the Shine RSB. I would not run the Shine RSB on stock springs. The applied RSB goes way up with movement that is allowed by stock springs. Maybe good for autoX but I see real problems with this especially in TBOS conditions. Also pot holes cause the large RSB cars to get dis-combubalated in the butt while traversing such especially while in a turn. 
Peter I’m going to try stock rear springs and Shine RSB for a while. But I’m thinking: Neuspeed 25 mm RSB and 1.75 spacer in the stock spring would be the final perfect oldman setup. OEM ride, OEM ride height, far better than OEM performance even from a GTI or 337 (both really not very good). But it will still have bad trail brake oversteer, not as bad as OEM. The Shine RSB is probably


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*

double post...


_Modified by pyce at 12:05 PM 1-13-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_
FYI: the springs - front & rear - on the NB Turbo S (180 Hp) are the same as those on any NB 1.8T (150 Hp) with the "Sport Package".
Here's the color code / # or coils:
Front: 5 pinks / 5 turns 
Rear: 2 blues + 1 silver / 5 turns

Well, those same springs you are talking about are in the New Beetle TDI plain stock too, so I guess ALL NB have the same springs, which means ALL NB have "Sport Package". I will check the 2.0 Bug as we have couple in the parking, but I think if the TDI has them, the 2.0L will be the same







...
Oldman, I will respond later.... have to run now


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Another way to address TBOS is with stickier tires. It's pretty tough to bring
the rear end around with my Falkens. With my old Dunlop SP8ks, I could dial in
the amount of oversteer I wanted with changes in the tire pressures. With
the Falken Azenis's, I have to use very high rear pressure to get the tires
to come unglued, and then ride suffers, so I generally pick something in between
knowing the rear will stick a bit more than I want at the limit, and I just drive harder..








But if you're running high mileage tires (and I'm guessing you own a TDi for a related reason), 
the price you'll pay for quick responsive neutral handling on a FWD car, is lift throttle or 
trail braking oversteer and there's not much you can do about it, but learn how to deal with 
it at the track or Auto-X. That or you can add a bigger front bar to balance it out, but then 
you're throwing away much of the benefit of the rear bar.
One other thing to be aware of is that our cars have no mechanical rear brake 
proportioning valve and the static rear bias is high (as though the car is loaded), and 
the ABS system takes up the slack to prevent premature rear wheel lockup. What 
that means in terms of braking and turning at the limit is that you'll often feel the rear 
step out a bit (which will give you a queasy feeling) but then the ABS will reel it back in. 
I've spent enough time at the track to know that once I'm on the brakes hard, I
can continue deep into the corner without ever losing the rear. The only place I've
ever lost the rear end completely is lift throttle oversteer, and any FWD car will do that,
even on a stock suspension.
Overall, it sounds like you're after conflicting goals. 
ian


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Well, those same springs you are talking about are in the New Beetle TDI plain stock too, so I guess ALL NB have the same springs, which means ALL NB have "Sport Package". I will check the 2.0 Bug as we have couple in the parking, but I think if the TDI has them, the 2.0L will be the same







...

Pyce - Interesting... the TDi NB is 150-200 lbs heavier than the 2.0 and 1.8T versions, with most of the weight on the front-end. Please check the springs on 2.0 as well. If it turns out that all NBs have the same springs, then we've all been lied to by VW's marketing dept, and that the only difference in the Sport Package is the 17" wheels.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

right great post, I run high MPG tires because I have a TDI, I used to be in the buy a new set of tires every year club, sometimes two sets







But at $600 to $900 for performance tires just does not go well with a TDI, image. 
I don't know about the AutoX on my setup by high speed back roads TBOS is a real problem, even more so when the road surface is not in great condition. There is no real way to have you cake and eat it with the VW setup. Unlike almost every other car I've owned, I have not found a good compromise with the VW. Well maybe: VR6 fornt, stock rear with spacers, TC, home made RSB I was 100% happy except for TBOS, and as you have said it maybe more a tire compromise.
I don't know what gives with the VW and brake dive? Makes no sense not to proportion the brakes, but as you said, VW just lets the front dive, and leaves it to the ABS to keep the tire grip, no though was given to the BAD effects such as TBOS, or front end dive. Makes me really wonder if this is a German performance sedan at all?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_One other thing to be aware of is that our cars have no mechanical rear brake proportioning valve and the static rear bias is high (as though the car is loaded), and the ABS system takes up the slack to prevent premature rear wheel lockup. What that means in terms of braking and turning at the limit is that you'll often feel the rear step out a bit (which will give you a queasy feeling) but then the ABS will reel it back in. I've spent enough time at the track to know that once I'm on the brakes hard, I can continue deep into the corner without ever losing the rear. The only place I've ever lost the rear end completely is lift throttle oversteer, and any FWD car will do that, even on a stock suspension. 
ian

One of the ways some people deal with that is to put stock, less grippy pads on the rears and very good pads with better bite in the front to make it less rear-biased. Not sure if it helps with TBOS or not though!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
4. Alex, I can not answer your question about Bilstein with and without Buffers, because I do not have buffers. If you remember, they were sliced slowly to the point where I removed the remaining. Once I get the right spring (if I ever), I will purchase the "C" type Buffers and then we will do the experiment again, so we will know. I just do not want to think "buffers" now










What I meant was... you had Bilstein+ stock buffers, Koni+stock buffers, Koni+ short/no buffers, and Bilstein+ no buffer (last experiment). Was wondering how the Bilstein/no buffer ride compared to Bilstein+buffer (your original setup). It may be impossible to say since it was a long time ago, but was wondering if you could remember!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, the above is correct, BUT meanwhile the buffers-no buffers combinations were on different springs. So, I had Bilsteins+Buffers on Shine, but the Bilsteins with no Buffers were only for one day on Stock rear spring, and I guess at that point (if I were to have buffers) they would not have made difference as in stock form they are very high and would never touch when driving normally........ But tell you what, I will go to the dealer as we speak and get the "C" type (337) and put them and experiemnt some more. The H&R O.E. are coming today and I have great hopes there too.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

I would think it needs MORE rear bias, a stock VW will dive in front under heavy breaking, more so the TDI with the whimpy stock front springs and near useless dampers. This is NOT normal. My two Volvos, my Acuras (many) never did this. I would think a 337 or Audi rear brake setup with far more rear bias would help. Under TBOS, the weight is transfered to the front and the back just slips away (usually on one tire at this point). Hence Shine is lower and the rear and very stiff in the front as well as much higher. Lastly the big disk look so bling bling with holes and spirals, and coatings, all in the name of "performance". Not to mention red calipers


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

The things I learnt at the dealership......
1. The Buffers are impossible to order if you do not insist that the "C" version exists! They got mad at me as I was insisting and at the end I asked very kindly, just for my own curiosity to just check same part number and put "C" behind as to just see whether the ETKA will accept it and finally they shut up and believed it exists! The problem is that if you go to the parts and even say "337 Buffers", they have no way in the US ETKA to differentiate the 337 from the rest. At least this is what the dude tried to convince me....... The real bummer is that those small stupid buffers are 35$ each!!! So, I was making slices by 10$ each when I was cutting them, LOL







If I knew they are this expansive (more than a set of used rear springs!) I would have been easier with the cutter







Anyway, I will "glue" back mine and cut maybe little bit, but we will see first where the new springs fit in the equation...
2. Cadenza, while there I did some walking around with paper and pen and got some NB spring colors specially for you








It was wet as it rained last night, so I did not really want to lie down to look for the rear springs (at least it was not wet everywhere, so where it was dry - I got the rears too), but got few numbers for front springs..... Here we go:
- 1.8T 5 speed '00 - F = 2 Green 2 Orange
- 2.0 Auto '00 - F = 4 Green 1 Pink
- 2.0 5 speed '00 - F = 4 Green 1 Pink
- 2.0 5 speed '02 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 2.0 5 speed '03 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 2.0 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 2.0 Auto '01 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 1.8T 5 speed '03 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple (17" too)
- 1.8T 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
So, it looks to me that there was some difference between Front (F) springs before year 2002, but after that both 1.8T and 2.0 get the same Front spring. Even those with 17" wheels had the same springs. Never seen one with "Sport Package" on the sticker...... The difference starts with the Convertibles:
- 1.8T Convertible 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Purple 3 Pink ..... R = 2 Blue 3 Silver (this is 150 HP)
- 2.0 Convertible Auto '04 - F = 4 Pink Purple
At this point, I guess the TDI gets the springs that the 180 HP has, but it is not a "package" because I am sure the dealer would have definitely charged me for something like "Sport Package" if there was one.....
One thing is sure, as soon at it dries out I will go and check every single VW (they have huge lot), so we will have a full color combination. And if they do not mind, I will take the diameters too. A fun new project


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_I would think it needs MORE rear bias, a stock VW will dive in front under heavy breaking, more so the TDI with the whimpy stock front springs and near useless dampers. This is NOT normal. My two Volvos, my Acuras (many) never did this. I would think a 337 or Audi rear brake setup with far more rear bias would help. Under TBOS, the weight is transfered to the front and the back just slips away (usually on one tire at this point). Hence Shine is lower and the rear and very stiff in the front as well as much higher. Lastly the big disk look so bling bling with holes and spirals, and coatings, all in the name of "performance". Not to mention red calipers










I can't follow your logic. How much the car dives has nothing to do with the brake bias.
It dives due to the front spring rates, front compression damping, and rear rates and rear rebound damping.
And you don't fix TBOS by giving the car an even higher rear bias. Every bit of traction you use for 
increased braking, is taken away from lateral traction. As for the rear brake proportioning valve. 
They had em up to about 1995 and when they switched from Teves 04 to Teves 20 ABS they did away with 
the mechanical valve. My guess is they did it to save money and they figured Teves 20 was advanced enough 
to keep you out of trouble. If you pull the ABS fuse, or one of the wheelspeed sensors and do some heavy 
braking on the track it becomes immediately obvious that the static rear bias is too high. It had to be, 
so that there would be sufficient rear bias when the car is loaded down with rear passengers
and cargo. Thing is, you'll still feel the high rear bias as oversteer until the ABS system
actually sees the tires start slipping.
Anyway, the simplest advice I can give with regards to TBOS is "don't do that", or
at least practice it somewhere safe, and you may find that it's not half the issue you think it is. 
As I said above, when it comes to emergency handling I've never found the rear 
would let loose completely under braking and I've threshhold braked deep into the ABS at 70+ mph, 
turned the wheel hard to avoid a stopped car, ended up having to drive off the left edge of the road 
into the dirt at 50+mph because the road was totally blocked while on the brakes, and still recovered 
and got back on the road without incident. It's one of the few times I've actually appreciated ABS.
Most of the time I just find it to be annoying, particularly in the snow/gravel. If your car truly does
spin while braking and turning *into* a corner (as opposed to the more usual, going from gas to brakes
midcorner), then something else is wrong.
Anyway, you've confirmed my suspicion which was high mileage tires. That's never
going be a good combo with a sport suspension. Although I'd probably just
learn to drive the car sideways, as that can be fun too. You might want to
try experimenting with the tire pressures some too. Different tires grip best at different
pressures, and the same pressure all around is rarely optimal. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (~cia~)*

- cia - Sorry for the long delay ..... I was hoping someone will give you a reply too, but it did not happen. It is not easy to keep up with this topic after page 5







..... Anyway, you are looking for an advise and here is what I would like to say to you. What I think "today", after the few experiments we have done, is that actually it may not be a good idea to offer answers to people. We are all looking for a solution, but I am thinking "Do we really know what we want?" Yes, it is easy to say "I want my car to handle better!" but the problem is that we all (majority) do not know each other, never met and probably will never meet, so how do I know who you are, how do you drive, what do you prefer and not. Yes, it may be easy to write it down, but it may not be easy to comprehend and give the right answer. We both want our cars to perform better, and I can tell you what I like, but this doe snot mean you will like it and doe snot mean it will suit your style...... So, what I think today is that instead of looking for a ready solution that many offer here, you would be much better into looking for a "path" to go through and find out what actually really suits you on your exact car, with your wheels, tires, etc. An imaginary dream path could be (if they exist!) to get a set of not so hard springs coilovers, that have compression AND rebound adjustments on the shocks. Put all this in the car and start playing with all the variables until you get it to do what makes you feel it is the best for you. Then once you learn the whole thing upside-down and if it is not enough, then upgrade the springs with stiffer ones on the same system and go again all over the trial....... Yes, I know it will be very expansive and maybe you can't even find a ready-to-go system like this, but I am just giving an example of what would be nice to have, so you find all the answers there, by yourself...... Now, I still do not feel like telling you which way you should go (from the things we have on the market and no dream machines), but let me put it this way: If I were to start this all over again, the I would really keep the car stock and replace the shocks ONLY with the Koni Sport Yellow and play with front-rear rebound till I learn all the possible settings, what they give, what they take. The difference is more than what you could think of! Only then I would think about the front springs, and here the choice is very little to none. The only real game in town for the price and performance is the Front Shine. We have done recently few experiments with front ride height, and Dick and the rest are really right, our cars can't go lower than what they already are, not even 1/4 inch and I am serious as the experiments showed it very clearly. I hope the guy with the tester-car would write about this experience soon. It was an eye opener because it confirmed the whole theory in real life, right exactly it was written! .....Then play again with all the settings to adjust the rest to the new front. Only then when learnt all the above, I would go to the rear springs and rear anti-roll bar. Yes, people say the front-rear springs have to be matched and by fooling around (like me and others here) you are compromising the whole thing. Well, how am I going to learn if I do not "screw" somehow first? And anyway, whatever "kit" you buy, you go slowly first and slowly explore how it works, what gives-takes, etc...... and when you feel you are close to your safety limit, you slow down. The knowledge you gain thought, is priceless! I would say - go and experiment! Find yourself and what works best for yourself!


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

FYI
Unless things have changed radically in the automotive industry, those things that are being referred to as "buffers" are properly called bump-stops. It will greatly assist people doing searches on the topic if they are referred to as such.
HTH
Bill


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_The things I learnt at the dealership......
1. The real bummer is that those small stupid buffers are 35$ each!!! So, I was making slices by 10$ each when I was cutting them, LOL







If I knew they are this expansive (more than a set of used rear springs!) I would have been easier with the cutter









I've learned that VW is competing aggressively to look like Audi or BMW *in the Parts dept.* The cheapest part I bought so far is the coolant temp sensor - $7!









_Quote »_2. Cadenza, while there I did some walking around with paper and pen and got some NB spring colors specially for you







It was wet as it rained last night, so I did not really want to lie down to look for the rear springs (at least it was not wet everywhere, so where it was dry - I got the rears too), but got few numbers for front springs..... Here we go:
- 1.8T 5 speed '00 - F = 2 Green 2 Orange
- 2.0 Auto '00 - F = 4 Green 1 Pink *different from regular 1.8T*
- 2.0 5 speed '00 - F = 4 Green 1 Pink
- 2.0 Auto '01 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple 
- 2.0 5 speed '02 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple 
- 2.0 5 speed '03 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 1.8T 5 speed '03 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple (17" too)
- 2.0 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple
- 1.8T 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Pink 1 Purple 
*looks like VW lumped them all together sometime mid-year in '01...*
So, it looks to me that there was some difference between Front (F) springs before year 2002, but after that both 1.8T and 2.0 get the same Front spring. Even those with 17" wheels had the same springs. Never seen one with "Sport Package" on the sticker...... 

Thanks Pyce! Great work... It makes sense. VW deleted the "Sport Package" option for other NBs when they introduced the Turbo S in '02. The TDI has the same springs as the Turbo S / NBs with the Sport Package to accommodate the heavier front-end, but it wasn't packaged with the 17" wheels. It also appears that VW changed the spring color-coding sometime in '01 and used the same front springs for all 2.0 / 1.8T NBs... except the convertibles. I wonder what springs a '03 or '04 Turbo S has?

_Quote »_The difference starts with the Convertibles:
- 1.8T Convertible 5 speed '04 - F = 1 Purple 3 Pink / R = 2 Blue 3 Silver
- 2.0 Convertible Auto '04 - F = 4 Pink Purple
At this point, I guess the TDI gets the springs that the 180 HP has, but it is not a "package" because I am sure the dealer would have definitely charged me for something like "Sport Package" if there was one.....

Yes, there WAS a Sport Package for 1.8T NBs in either GLS or GLX trim. I still have the original window sticker. Like I said previously, VW used the Turbo S (180 Hp) springs for the TDi to accommodate its heavier front-end. It makes sense!

_Quote »_One thing is sure, as soon at it dries out I will go and check every single VW (they have huge lot), so we will have a full color combination. And if they do not mind, I will take the diameters too. A fun new project









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

Stealth, if you go to page 1 of this topic, alex put a pix about this assembly and the #4 is called "Stop Buffer", and therefore I called it like this here.... Also this morning the VW parts guy was refering to it the same way. Then yes, H&R for example calls them "Bumpstops" (one word). I have no problem with either, but I will write it as you suggested from now on....


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Stealth, if you go to page 1 of this topic, alex put a pix about this assembly and the #4 is called "Stop Buffer"


Well now, aren't I glad I put the disclaimer "Unless things have changed radically in the automotive industry" in my post. I guess things have changed radically....








I wonder if that diagram is from a Bentley manual or a VW manual? It looks like the diagram in my Bentley manual. Perhaps "buffer" is Bentley's terminology?

Bill


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Stealth Car)*

The "H&R O.E." springs are here! Striking similarity with Neuspeed "SofSport" for the rears! Just the coil diameter is smaller(12.2 mm average), and of course, the color is different too. But as active coils and dead coils and the way they start and end - the just look like twins Now I am almost sure the "drop" would be 0.5 inches too, LOL!


_Modified by pyce at 2:53 PM 1-14-2004_


----------



## catalytic (Jul 31, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

Yes, but the H&R OE Sport springs are supposed to be a little softer than the Neuspeed SofSports. Probably more like the Eibach ProKit in terms of spring rate (15-20% firmer than stock) as opposed to 30-35% firmer than stock for the SofSports.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (catalytic)*

Catalytic, I so much hope so (they are softer!)...... Tyrol Mike wrote the SofSports are 12.85 mm coil diameter, and these are 12.20. Slight advantage there, so I have hopes. Then the SofSport's "D" value id about 4.125" and the H&R is 4.165", so, again towards softer spring. So, coils number being equal, the H&R should be, as you said, softer. I will know more tonight....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Catalytic, I so much hope so (they are softer!)...... Tyrol Mike wrote the SofSports are 12.85 mm coil diameter, and these are 12.20. Slight advantage there, so I have hopes. Then the SofSport's "D" value id about 4.125" and the H&R is 4.165", so, again towards softer spring. So, coils number being equal, the H&R should be, as you said, softer. I will know more tonight....

Hi Peter,
Sorry, but could you please remind me, why do you want something softer than Sofsport? Did the rear Sofsport turn out to be too stiff, comfort-wise?
Congrats on the H&R, regardless -- looking forward to hearing how it works out!
(P.S. -- were you able to buy just the rear pair?)


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_The things I learnt at the dealership......
1. The Buffers are impossible to order if you do not insist that the "C" version exists! They got mad at me as I was insisting and at the end I asked very kindly, just for my own curiosity to just check same part number and put "C" behind as to just see whether the ETKA will accept it and finally they shut up and believed it exists! The problem is that if you go to the parts and even say "337 Buffers", they have no way in the US ETKA to differentiate the 337 from the rest. At least this is what the dude tried to convince me....... The real bummer is that those small stupid buffers are 35$ each!!! So, I was making slices by 10$ each when I was cutting them, LOL







If I knew they are this expansive (more than a set of used rear springs!) I would have been easier with the cutter







Anyway, I will "glue" back mine and cut maybe little bit, but we will see first where the new springs fit in the equation...


First of all that dude was BSing. If they look under 2000 or 2001, there's no C version, when they look under suspension 2002/2003, it shows two different part#, one stated "for sports suspension" and that's C. Maybe that dealership didn't know how to do it. Also, BARGAIN, they can give you a better deal. I can get those for 35 CND$ which would be like 26US. If you can find a friend in parts, would be great!


----------



## inspleak (Oct 9, 2003)

I know this is not really a helpful comment and I appologize in advance but is there a chance we could get a side view pic of your ride, pyce, with your setup installed?
thanks man... this has to be one of the best threads ever posted...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Ceilidh ..... I never tried the SofSport, but I trust few people here who have them and when they say "there is nothing Soft in the SofSport" then I decided that it is not going to be far from the Shine. Here is the thing, it had been three days now with the Stock rears and Konis on 25% stiff and I must say I really like it very much! This spring really somehow works differently than the 337 (I still believe they are the same rates or close enough, even if people disagree) and I think a lot has to do with the ride height. I was not so happy with the 337 and 25% stiff, but I can drive all day long on Stock and 25% stiff like now. I can be a happy camper just like this, but would like to just find out how close I am to what I want, so the H&R OE springs are the only spring that I know of with (advertised) 10-15% stiffer than stock AND about 0.5 inches lower ride than stock. So, I would love to see what that gives-takes. Basically would like to find how much comfort would I sacrifice for how much better response and balance. If it is a good (to me ) trade off, then I will keep it that way. IF not, they are for sale and I will settle for the Stock rear on 25% stiff and would eventually try the 12.5% stiff as per your suggestion, but that would be it ...... and then concentrate on learning how to drive this setup fast and go to some schools and push it and see where are the weak points and see what I can do to go over them, etc...... No, I got the whole set front and rear, they gave me a good price.
Alex ...... There is no way I can get friends with our dealerships here. I just see it difficult and not worth the few bucks savings. If you have a place on the Net where I can purchase those "C" stop buffers-bumpstops, please do let me know, I would appreciate it!
Inspleak ..... I will try to satisfy your request, let me put the H&R first. Just do not expect much, it is almost a stocker with only 16" wheels. And to a lot of people may even look funny with this setup, but we will see


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Sure dive it is also related to spring rates et all, and maybe more related to such. 
I've stated, an OEM stock TDI will dive big time while on the brakes and IMO this effects how the car behaves in any handling condition(s) including TBOS. 
One could argue that is is the front springs, or dampers or whatever, I see this as a chicken / egg argument, there is too much transfer of weight to the front while on the brakes OEM TDI, and this should have been fixed OEM and it has not been. 
I can see your point on a * proper * suspension and its relation to TBOS and brake bias.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

great post, hope this works! If it does H&R should just build this (shine lite) since shine won't. BTW please post the H&R wire size and coil count. thanks.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex ...... There is no way I can get friends with our dealerships here. I just see it difficult and not worth the few bucks savings. If you have a place on the Net where I can purchase those "C" stop buffers-bumpstops, please do let me know, I would appreciate it!


Here you go:
http://www.impexfap.com/partlist.cfm 
They have both B and C for 19.50$, but gotto add shipping (not sure how much).


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

H&R OE Rears are in, and took half day off this morning and drove the thing around for some time. It is probably the best spring (only to me!) I ever had on my rear, because it is firmer than stock, but not uncomfortably firm. It is very close to what I was expecting and If I can try to describe it, it would be like: If stock is 1 (comfy) and Shine is 5 (firm), this would be about 2 to 2.5 in terms of comfort. The nice part is that it stiffens the back just (more) enough than the stock spring, so the "feel of handling" is noticeably increased. I say "feel" of handling as I do not really know how otherwise to describe it when the car feels flatter and gives you more confidence in curve. Actually the real life handling could be even worse, but I can't find those limits yet, neither I am looking for them on the street. It simply rolls significantly less with these H&R OE springs. If I can try again to describe it with numbers, it could be something like: If stock is 1 (leaning, rolling) and Shine is 5 (very flat) the this feels somehow in between 3 and 3.5. Of course, for better comparison I have to put back the Shine springs as to have a fresh reminder and then would be easier (and more accurate) to post those numbers...... I do not know what else to say, but it feels like it was good move towards what I am looking for. At this point I felt little uncomfortable just on couple of stretches of road with very uneven surface at highway speed, but the Konis are also on 25% stiff at the moment too. I am pretty positive that going down to 12-13% stiff (1/4 turn) would resolve that, as I now know what the Konis can do with just a 1/4 of turn..... Yes, I think I will not be so far off if I say that the only discomfort happens on high speed and not-so-great roads. The low speed crap road is pretty well taken. Tonight will put the Konis on 12% stiff and maybe even on 0% stiff and see what happens, but from what I have seen so far, it can only get better (with going softer rebound) in terms of comfort. Overall, I think it is the best bet I have as to get closer to the Shine feel, but still have some comfort left. The final answer will be when the Konis go softer tonight..... And would like to say it again - It is something I am trying to achieve for my particular case, so it may be a combo that many of you would not like at all. If anyone of the readers here decides to go for this, and if it turns out it is far from what he/she was expecting - please do not blame on me. I am only trying to "customize" something as to gain some and loose some, with bottom line me being able to enjoy little bit more my 35.000 miles per year on the not so great roads where I live.
Oldman, the springs are like carbon copy of the SofSport. 4 very well countable working coils and another 4 "dead" coils below, that are fully compressed when installed. The coil diameter is 12.2 mm average (vary from 12.1 to 12.3 from bottom to top coils) and this is including the coating, which I have no idea how thick it is. The outer diameter of the whole spring is 118 mm. It lowers the rear by about 0.5 to 0.6 inches from my stock 1 silver 3 Green springs. The rear really looks slightly lower than Shine car with 180 lb rear springs and slightly taller than a Shine 200 lb spring.
Alex, thanks for the link, I will get a set from there!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

So let's see if we've got this all straight..
For a MkIV 1.8t Golf
we're talking 
at the front, Shine springs and Bilstein dampers.. 
at the rear H&R OE springs with Koni adjustable dampers
and a Shine Rear bar.
Oh.. and let's not forget.. either C buffers/bumpstops, or B's shortened an inch or so.
ian


_Modified by Daemon42 at 3:40 PM 1-15-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Daemon42)*

Ian, sounds quiet right. The only different is it is not a 1.8T Golf, but it is 1.9T Jetta and that may make little difference, but we do not have much choice as they sell the springs for MKIV and that's it. 
As soon as I see what the Konis give tonight (with going softer) I would replace the Front Bilsteins with Konis too, and we will see how much comfort is to be gain from there, and also (most of all) how much rebound would equal the feel that the Bilsteins give. I think the rear is close to done, because I am slowly realizing that if we want to "keep up" in the performance department, we can't really go so soft (stock like) and the next firmer than stock spring available is this H&R OE....... Unless someone finds a commerically (not custom) available spring that doe snot lower more than 0.5 inch and is slightly softer than the H&R OE. I would be willing to try that one too. Would be also nice to compare the SofSport to this H&R OE and find out (or try to find out) what are the real spring rates of the H&R as they keep it soooo secret.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
the H&R springs are like carbon copy of the SofSport. 4 very well countable working coils and another 4 "dead" coils below, that are fully compressed when installed. The coil diameter is 12.2 mm average (vary from 12.1 to 12.3 from bottom to top coils) and this is including the coating, which I have no idea how thick it is. The outer diameter of the whole spring is 118 mm. It lowers the rear by about 0.5 to 0.6 inches from my stock 1 silver 3 Green springs. The rear really looks slightly lower than Shine car with 180 lb rear springs and slightly taller than a Shine 200 lb spring.
Alex, thanks for the link, I will get a set from there!

Hi Peter -- thanks for the post, and congratulations!! It sounds like you're close (or at) your final setup!
Just wanted to let you know: I called up Neuspeed yesterday (you inspired me) and chatted with them about their Sofsports and the H&Rs. According to Neuspeed (and I'm just relating what they told me), Neuspeed used to buy their Sofsports from H&R -- that is, H&R made the spring under Neuspeed's name -- until about 7 years ago, when Neuspeed switched to a different supplier in Germany. Hence it's quite possible that the H&R OE is basically a Sofspring, with a different name.
On another note, there are two (possibly 3) different lengths for the rear Sofsport spring, depending on Jetta/Golf and 1.8/VR6. I'll try to get over to the Neuspeed distributor near here with a tape measure sometime; will keep you posted.
Once again, congrats!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Peter do you have the H&R fronts also? If so please post the coil count and the wire size. We can then directly compare them to stock, softsprot and of course Shine. 
So maybe a Shine lite can be made with VR6 24V front springs and H&R OE rears? I'd like H&R to build a set.
I should add the dealer sports springs were not tried and they are suppose to be OEM rate just .500 lower which of course is meaningless as there is no one OEM rate nor one OEM ride height.
Great post. I'm on working on the factory Suksoon system, so far Alpine Head Unit and sound is 200% better, no really! I'm looking at MTX sub in custom MTX mount on the side of the Jetta trunk, and yes get my AM radio working too.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Ay caramba, my head is swimming reading all these posts!















Time for some track and AutoX experience here:
On brake bias:
The mk4 is WAY overbiased to the rear. I pulled the ABS fuse at LimeRock one time, and you should have seen the *plumes* of tire smoke from rear tire lockup on entry to every corner. Suffice it to say that experiment failed. Even with the braking system in proper working order, the ABS would engage with the stock rotor sizes, same pads at all 4 corners. Hardening the pad up front and softening the rear helped. Adding TT rotors up front helped more......
On rear rebound:
....upping the rear rebound on the konis helped the most in alleviating the rear ABS engaging on the track. I now have front brake lockup when stopping from 125>>>60 or so on track. Much better overall, and much better turn-in. TBOS is always an issue, but I just don't understand why people make a big deal of it.....when the butt starts coming around, put your right foot down.








Setting the koni rebound to full all-around is *dramatically* different than setting it 1/2 way all around. The turn-in is WAY better, and rotation finally happens even when _accelerating_ out of certain corners. Cut easily 1second off my times 1:06>1:05 just by upping the rebound at all 4 corners. 
On softsport vs. Shine
I'm now running the 225/180 Shine. Results are better turn-in, and slightly firmer ride vs. the SofSports. Not a dramatic difference, but better. Maybe I'm just hardcore, but the ride is 100% tolerable here in NYC. I run 225/50-16 Kumho Ecsta MX at 34psi all around, shine RSB, poly everywhere. Im 31yo.....
Ride height is higher than OEM up front, and about the same in the rear as the SofSports. I called Ely at Shine to order the 200 rears, and he said it's completely not worth it, as the difference is neglible. They don't even sell the 200s anymore to mk4 guys.......
On Shine in general
I'm not a fan of Bilsteins with the Shine, for both ride AND handling. The konis on firm handle WAY better than the Bils, and on 1/2 all around ride WAY better than the Bils. There is only one choice for me. The car handles very well, but as Oldman pointed out, midcorner bumps can get hairy. Oh well....we're not driving M3s or S2ks. 
On shine front and soft rears.
I havent driven it, but it makes no sense to me from both theory and my practice. Setting the konis full stiff up front and full soft in the rear makes for an understeering oinker. How Pyce is getting good handling is beyond me(Not a criticism, just confusion)......
Next Steps:
Camber plates are on the way. Should be installed next week. Results soon. 17x8 and 245/50-17 all around after that. Should provide some really good grip. Last steo will be going with Ground Control Coilover sleeves and 300F/225R or so. This will happen mid summer is my guess.
Hope this helped.
-Mike P


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (tyrolkid)*

Hey tyroll, you also had Eibach prokits, right? How do they stack up to your current setup or Sofsports?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (tyrolkid)*

Mike, I guess your confusion on my comments comes from the fact that you are talking "track" type of driving and am talking simply "spirited on the road" type of driving. And I think here is where the big issue comes when people talk about suspension - we all have different priorities and to all of us the word "handling" has different meaning. We all have very different driving style too. The car I drive may be like a very bad combo to you, but it suits me. It is not about MAX performance here. I know, we all want to have the BEST handling setup, but even if we find one, still it will be great for you and not-so-great to me or vice versa. And anyway, I do not understand why there is this common sense that as soon as we mix a pare of springs from different manufacturer - my car would be this horrible thing to drive and is going to fly of the road?







There is this long post about "Verified Springs Rates" and if we go and read there, we will see amazing variety of different numbers, and all this somehow goes on our cars and somehow there are many people who love those setups. So, I really have hard time to understand why a Shine 225-180 would be amazing setup and another one with Shine 225 - HR 150 lb would be horrible setup? I mean, it may not be a champ on the track, but I do not drive any near the limit of my car anyway. Then let's talk SofSport..... if they are 220-160, then why a combo like mine 225-150 would be that bad? Yes, again, it is not the champ, but I have the feeling that people expect me to crash on every other corner because now my car would under steer like mad....... We have a company car here, a Golf, and I took it for a spin today. Now, THAT thing in it's stock form under steers when I tried to drive it in the way I drive my car. So, I think, after all, this setup here is at least much better than stock







....... I really do not know, it is very confusing when I read from you real racers telling me that all this should not be good thing, and at the same time I just feel this thing goes so well in corners and gives me so much confidence and comfort at the same time....... I really do not know what else to say. Guess the only way would be we all meet somewhere in the middle (perhaps a Colorado Mountains GTG hosted by Ian?







) and drive our cars and try these things in real life. I can't think of other way to compare..... Shall we?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (tyrolkid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tyrolkid* »_......Setting the konis full stiff up front and full soft in the rear makes for an understeering oinker. How Pyce is getting good handling is beyond me(Not a criticism, just confusion)......

Now that I read your post again..... I never set up the Konis on full stiff front and full soft rear. I do not even have Konis on the front yet, and on the rear have never been past 50% stiff. You can actually try this at home as you have all the goods.... Shine front and Koni between 20 and 50%, then SofSport rear and Koni on 25% stiff. Please, try it one day and you will see that it is not as bad as you think


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: (pyce)*

Again, I'm not criticising you. I agree with everything you have to say. We all have different goals. It's important that all viewpoints are presented, so that all forum members can make better decisions.


----------



## inspleak (Oct 9, 2003)

*Re: (pyce)*

pyce: thanks man.. I'm really just curious more than anything... i've got 16s too...everything is pretty much stock, just lookin' for new suspension








thanks again for all of your hard work on this one... I'm sure there are lots of
people who haven't posted and have learned quite a bit so far!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (inspleak)*

Peter get back to me on the front H&R. I like you need a street car and all this tuning is getting long in the tooth. I still have my sounds to fool with, and in the future leather and a peal white paint job. So I'm hoping to have my suspension done soon and if has to be H&R OE front and /or just the rear or whatever so be it. 
I like the fact that your rear butt sway into the turn is gone as I don't like this at all!
So the MK4 has a heavy rear bias, thus Deamon42 was correct that the dive is all in the suspension. Dive is not really a problem with my VR6 springs but TBOS still a problem and I can live with that as I've found no easy fix. Tires? dunno my MPG should last 60K or more so it will be a while. 


_Modified by oldmanTDI at 7:42 AM 1-16-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Mike, please do not take it personally! I like it when people say what they think and I value very much your thoughts. I said it few times in tis topic, that I may be terribly wrong with all the things I am doing, but if I do not do it, I would never learn. I spent two years reading here on the vortex, and at the end all I got was confusion and not knowing who to believe........ now at least I am trying few tihngs and know from experience what gives what, so the list of people who I would listen to narrows incredibly fast







I would really appreciate if you try to put the rear SofSport and tell all of us what do you think about it.....
Oldman, I spent the evening in the garage, playing with rebound, so did not have time to measure the springs, but I will bring all of the to my office tomorrow and will give you very accurate measurements of everyihtng I got here. Good night everybody, too tired to say few more things....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

So, put the Konis on full soft last night. Drove it this morning for about one hour and it is pretty clear that the spring (H&R O.E.) is not really 10-15% stiffer than stock, it is more than that! It is one firm spring, even if it is far from the Shine firm. It is also clear that the 38 PSI are too much for real good comfort. Put the pressure back to about 32-33 and it really transformed the ride quality. Tonight will try to go up little bit as to find where is the boundary I can stand, but at about 32-33 PSI right now I think is the closest ever to what I have been looking for. Amazing difference with 5 PSI less tire pressure. I mean, I tried this same thing back then with Shine and it improved a lot (going minus 5 PSI) but the improvement with this spring now feels like more substantial. The last thing would be to try the 10-12% stiff on the Konis, just to find out what is it, but in case it is going to be worse I can always go back to the today's setup. So, if you guys are high tire pressure lovers, I guess the H&R O.E. may not be really your ultimate choice, but going down to the low thirties PSI makes the real trick with this spring. Again, we have to see what happens on 34-36 PSI range, but I will know more tomorrow....
Made some measuring this morning, after all is bolted and settled little bit and must say that the car somehow went even lower on the rear. So, now we have about 13/16 of an inch of lowering on the rear compare to Stock spring. So, it is more than the advertised 1/2 inch, but the car really looks good (to me) right about 3/16 of an inch lower than Shine 180 lb.

EDITED, because accidentally hit the enter and submitted the post. Wanted to say that I put back what have remained from my buffers-bumpstops, so some of you do not worry too much about my safety It sticks out (from top) about 1/2 inch from the metal part, I guess it is enough till the type "C" arrives...... anyway, I can't even get this much compression as to touch them, but yeah, part of them is back in 


_Modified by pyce at 11:58 AM 1-16-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (~cia~) : things to modify (very long post)*


_Quote, originally posted by *~cia~* »_I'm am currently looking for the same characteristics as pyce is looking for in a suspension system because I too drive in a city where the pot holes and big-gap expansion joints rule the roads.
I was all "gun-ho" to upgrade my suspension until i came across this thread and the one at the top of the forum about A-arm suspension geometry. After reading these threads I actually became a little discouraged to proceed with the mods.
I have gone as far as adding a rear swaybar and have a set of Eibach Pro-kit springs sitting in my closet. Only the the shocks were left to purchase but that's when i came across these threads. 
I'm asking for a little guidance from those who contributed their knowledge and opinions in this thread on what i can possible do to improve my suspension and performance without going too far.








Also, not to get off topic about Shock/spring combo's, but i do consider it related,
has it just been overlooked or is there something not being mentioned (like the buffer stops) about these SportSpindles that H2S is offering? 
It seems to correct any concerns about suspension geometry when lowering MK IV's. 


Hi Folks,
Sorry to interrupt the flow of the posts (Pyce, I too am really interested to hear more about your H&R OE findings!), but I wanted to give a reply to Cia, and this is the first time this week I've had a chance to sit down and really write. Anyway, for those following the OE/ Sofsport/ possible Shine Lite discussions, please do skip this long post, as it's referring to an earlier question. Cheers(!)
- Ceilidh
Ok, Cia,
Just to elaborate on the response Pyce gave you a couple of days back: if I understand your situation correctly, you're getting a little confused and discouraged by all the conflicting advice that's offered out there, and you're trying to make sense of it all. In particular, I imagine you're trying to reconcile the following oft-repeated recommendations:
* a rear sway (antiroll) bar is a great first mod to your car.
* antiroll bars are for tuning a basically sound suspension; they can't be a crutch for a bad suspension
* you should drop your car to lower the CG (center of gravity); lowering the CG will improve your handling by reducing roll and lateral weight transfer in corners
* don't lower your car! VWs can't take being lowered!
* tires are the first thing you should upgrade
* shocks (dampers) are the first thing you should upgrade
* springs are the first thing you should upgrade
* there are no hard and fast rules; everything's relative
* everything has to work together; you can't just make one change and expect it to work; you have to everything to all parts of the suspension, and thus make a harmonious whole
* it all really depends on what YOU want for your car
* big bars (or springs, or drop, or wheels, or whatever) work for some people, and not for others. It's a personal thing.
* the stock suspension is %^@$&! -- save your money and buy coilovers!!
* No, save your money and go to a good driving/ racing school...
Have I left anything out?







As with most controversies, there's a grain of truth somewhere inside most of these statements, but if you want to know when one statement will apply more than another, it's helpful to see things in a larger context.
Oh, before I start, here's a plug for someone I've never met: Daemon42 has recently posted some really, truly excellent explanations of sway (antiroll) bars, limited slip differentials, and general high-performance FWD handling issues on the "How does a sway bar work" thread ( http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=148337 ). If you haven't already done so, go through Daemon42's posts, and maybe take a look at his personal homepage as well (if you click on his name, a "bio" window will appear, and his homepage address is on there). If your interest lies in maximum handling for hard driving (particularly in a traction-limited, high-powered car), there's very little that I can say that Daemon42 has not said better. (But conversely, if your interest lies more towards simply making your car a little "nicer" and more fun handling on rough real-world roads, keep reading here too!) Right, here we go:
How Cars Are Designed
(Major apologies beforehand!! What follows is an enormous simplification. Engineering design processes are a lot more complicated, interative, and integrated than what I'm about to describe, and I'm just trying to give a very rough, simplistic idea -- my apologies to the designers and engineers on the forum (I'm an engineering project manager too -- robotics).)
Anyway, Cia, it might help to know the basic (oversimplified!) design sequence in creating a suspension from scratch:
* first you determine the car's intended usage and performance/ marketing/ etc goals
* those goals constrain your choice of tire & wheel package
* you then design the suspension geometry around the tire & wheel, carefully choosing suspension parameters (e.g., camber change with wheel movement) to suit the tires and the goals
* after geometry you set the springs to give the correct ride, ride height, wheel travel, etc., which (if you've done the geometry correctly) will hopefully get you somewhere close to the correct handling characteristics
* you then throw on some dampers (shocks) and antiroll bars that come reasonably close to what you think you should come up with, and tweak them until you get the ride and handling as close as you can to your original goals.
* repeat the above steps until you've finally achieved what you want.
The reason I mention the above is that, in general, it's easier and safer to play with the things towards the bottom of the list than it is to play with the stuff at the top. An analogy would be building a house: first you dig a foundation, then put up the frame, then the sheathing, then the plumbing, the interior walls, the cabinetry, the carpets, and finally the furnishings: if someone then comes along and wants to make changes, he/she will find it much easier to rearrange the furniture than to properly redo the foundation. That's not to say you can't actually knock out an interior wall or arrange for some rewiring -- but it's not something you blithely do, and you should only do it if someone with experience in these things tells you "You can knock out this wall, but not that one."
Now, before someone gets an idea that we have to stay with the 195/65-15s or whatever that came with our cars (because tires are at the top of our list), let's go back through the list in more detail, and see how they apply to the VW A4 platform:
1) Tire & Wheel Packages: Here is the foundation of our house; the hardest and riskiest thing to change. But while we don't have a choice here, nobody is too upset by that, as we're used to having no choice. Nobody (at least nobody in the Suspension Tuning forum; goodness knows what goes on at Wheels and Tires) is advocating that we change tire diameters (wheel diameter yes -- but invariably we're talking about "plus 1" or "plus 2" upsizing, where the overall tire diameter stays very close to stock), and in practice the handling-oriented people seem to debate between different brands of 205/55-16 vs 225/45-17 tires -- not a huge difference. (Plus there are a few oddballs like myself, who like the 195/65-15s for reasons of ride, practicality, or vintage handling feel (they slide around more and have bigger slip angles, which makes the steering less precise and the cornering less "on-rails", but for me that makes them more fun at lower speeds...).)
So where does that leave the recommenders who say "Tires are the most important thing."? They're absolutely right. So long as you stay within the 195/65-15 to 225/45-17 range, you're within the range that VW designed the rest of the car around, and you should pick the size and brand that best suits your needs. There has been lots written about tires elsewhere, so I won't say much, but in general the wider sizes and the performance models will have sharper steering, a harsher ride, and often (though less generally than many people assume) more traction; the narrower tires are typically better riding, better in snow and heavy rain, less precise in feel, and they run at bigger slip angles; plus they survive potholes and urban living a bit better.
Oh, one thing I've not seen discussed too much on Vortex is that the narrower tires are usually more forgiving of camber changes than are the wide ones -- they care a little less if the car rolls a lot. Because of that, if you're starting with one of the more softly-sprung cars (a 2.0 Golf GL, for example), something like a 225/45-17 can be pretty disappointing -- because the car rolls more than the tire can tolerate, in some cases the car actually understeers more with the big expensive wheels than it did on the skinny stockers.
Bottom line, for handling, stay within the stock VW sizes, and pick the size and brand that best fits your handling, ride, and practicality needs. Put them on your car, and see how you like them. If the handling's still not where you want it, keep reading.
2. Suspension Geometry. 
This one's easy. Don't change it. Just as with the tires (which can range from 195-225 width in stock U.S. trim), there's a limited range of variation that VW took into account when designing the car, but in practice it seems to come down to a modest variation in rear ride height (the Shine rear spring vs. the stock coils) and, judging from this forum, maybe 1/2" of ride height at the front. The racers and autocrossers will play with toe and sometimes camber, but for an innocent little street car, leave the rest of the geometry alone (and that includes avoiding silly things like track-widening spacers).
Regarding ride height, that is regularly beaten to death in this forum, and you can read about the debate elsewhere, but in general (Daemon42 and Dick Shine, please correct me here if it doesn't apply to VWs), a lowered ride height tends to reduce the corkscrewing motion that can occur under heavy braking and trail braking. Pyce, however, seems to have shown that the lowered rear leads to a rougher ride, irrespective of bumpstops.
Anyway, where does that leave the common advertising claim: "lowering your car's CG will improve looks and handling!"? I don't know about the looks, but the handling statement is true only if lowering doesn't cause other horrible things to happen in the suspension geometry. With VWs, there seem to be enough problems at the front that any "gain" you get from a slightly lowered CG is more than upset (in spades) by the geometric problems.
(As for the drop spindles you asked about? I've no experience with them, and they could be a well-engineered product, or they could be a mass of hidden stress risers and fatigue cracks waiting to fail at the worst possible time -- I have no idea who this company is. But irrespective of the quality of that particular product, it doesn't sound like it's designed for you, at least not at this point in your car life: it sounds like you're interested in changing the furniture and maybe the lights and the carpets -- why mess with the framing of the house right away? Please note that roll center heights and bump steer are not the only things to take into account in designing a front suspension -- there are kingpin inclination, geometric trail, resonance & compliance, and other issues as well. Maybe these guys can get everything to work right, maybe they can't -- but why bother risking it all, when there are so many easier things to play with?)
Hmmm. How can I make this more emphatic? 4years ago I helped a friend modify an American V8 RWD sedan (lots of fun, that project was!). Our first, very first step was to go plus-two on the wheel & tire, which is a very standard, innocuous mod on any car with performance pretences. This car, however, had absolutely zero performance pretences (which is what made it such a fun sleeper), and the good engineers out in Detroit had never dreamed anyone would try it. So we put these stock diameter, wider & heavier than stock wheel/tires on the brand new, absolutely stock car, and between 45mph and 75mph there instantly developed a maddening vibration that shook the car so hard that it was hard to hold onto the steering wheel (and no, it wasn't an out of round or imbalanced wheel or tire: we swapped everything around, in various combinations, and substituted different rims and tires -- the proprietor was desperate to make the sale; nor was it ball joints, bushings, or anything else (believe me, lots of people checked) -- something about the extra width and weight of the new boots was setting off a resonance within the car. Finally, my buddy called up the tuner magazine that had suggested this wheel & tire mod on their own same-model project car, and the fellow who wrote the article admitted they had encountered the same vibration, but didn't want to ruin the story by mentioning it. We returned the wheels & tires, & decided never to believe that particular magazine again. Bottom line for us here on the vortex: don't mess with suspension geometry unless you have a very good reason to do so, and pay attention to what the experienced experts (e.g., Dick Shine) say about what is or is not permissible.
3. Springs, bars, and dampers (shocks)
Ok, here's where we have some flexibility to experiment(!), and here's a little background info that might help.
A) Why antiroll bars are just for tuning. When folks say "a rear antiroll bar is an ideal first (suspension) modification" and others say "antiroll bars cannot correct for a screwed up suspension: get the springs and dampers right first", they're both right. A rear antiroll bar is in fact an ideal first mod (after the tires) for someone who is basically happy with everything else about his/her suspension, but who just wants to tweak the handling balance a little, and slightly reduce the overall roll. But it's a tweak, and beyond that, it's a pretty lousy way of making more fundamental changes to the handling.
An ideal candidate for a rear antiroll bar is someone who has just gone plus one or plus two on his/her tires (e.g., a Golf 2.0 owner who has upsized from the 195/65-15s), and who is now finding that the car rolls more than before (because the tires have more grip), and is understeering too much (because the treads of the wide, tilted front tires are lifting off the ground). Often, a modest rear bar can correct for those problems, as the stiffer rear "loosens" the rear end (see Daemon42's posts for an explanation) while somewhat reducing the roll; both effects reduce the understeer, and sharpen the handling. If the driver is now happy, that's great!
The problem arises when the momentarily happy driver thinks, wow, if a modest rear bar can help that much, then a bigger bar, plus maybe a big front bar, will be even better! At this point there's a big temptation to use the bars to "further improve" the handling -- which they can't do. There are (at least) three inter-related problems.
1) The easiest problem to understand is what the bar does to spring rate and ride comfort. As already discussed on this thread and elsewhere, an antiroll bar makes the effective spring rate on 1-wheel bump higher than it is on 2-wheel (same axle) bump; for an infinitely stiff antiroll bar, the 1-wheel spring rate is doubled, so real-world rates are somewhere between 0% and 100% greater. Now, the advertising copy for antiroll bars would lead you to believe that this isn't a problem ("It doesn't hurt your ride, since the bar doesn't do anything when your wheels hit a bump!"), but sometimes I think the advertising writers must all live in brand new Sunbelt cities, where the only bumps they encounter are expansion joints cutting straight across otherwise perfectly smooth concrete freeways -- out here in New England, where nothing's straight or regular, a big antiroll bar can be really annoying. In fact, it's usually doubly annoying because of the way aftermarket bars (with the exception of the Shine bar and its copies) are mounted to the chassis and wheels: they're usually mounted with bushings and links with enough play in them that the suspension moves a fair bit before the bar actually begins to twist. With a really stiff bar, the result is a sudden jolt on 1-wheel bumps as the wheels take up the compliance and suddenly engage the bar (again, this is not an issue with the Shine-style bar). That jolt is really annoying.
2) A related antiroll bar problem that has both ride and handling implications concerns damping. A shock absorber cannot distinguish between a 1-wheel bump vs a 2-wheel bump (well, some could -- the 1958 Mini, and the late 90s MGF); nor can it tell between a car body heaving up and down over a whoop-de-do or rolling over on corner entry. All the shock sees is wheel motion at its particular corner of the car, and all it can do is try to damp that motion. The problem with a stiff bar, however, is that the spring rate on 1-wheel bump is much higher than the spring rate on 2-wheel bump; similarly, the spring rate under roll is much higher than the spring rate on up & downs. So how do you tune the shock to the spring? If you tune it to the 2-wheel bump / body motion over up & downs, you're underdamped on 1-wheel and on roll (cornering). If you tune it to the 1-wheel, rolling stuff, you're overdamped (i.e., harsh) on normal straightline driving. And there's nothing you can do (short of redesigning the entire suspension to be like a 1997 MGF's). As a result, the ride will suffer one way or another, and the handling will suffer one way or another.
For reasons 1 and 2, a passenger car guideline from the 60s through the 80s was to not let the 1-wheel spring rate become more than 15% stiffer than the barless, 2-wheel spring rate. That's not a very stiff bar! More recent passenger vehicles seem to be violating this guideline, partly because cars & trucks are getting taller and something has to be done to control the roll, and partly because our ride standards have simply worsened (ride in a restored 60s sedan someday, and marvel at the smooth ride!!), but in any case we don't want to make things worse by going crazy on stiff bars.
3) Point #3 I'll not go into in full detail (this is a ridiculously long post already), but is has to do with what many racers say about "bars lifting the inner wheel off the ground, reducing traction, while stiff springs press the inner wheel down onto the traction, enhancing road holding and traction out of a corner". As with many things that racers say, this statement is nonsense in a strict physics or engineering sense, but such a good description of a more subtle physical process that we might as well stay with it. If there are any physicists out there who wonder how such a statement can be true (it's pretty easy to show that equivalently stiff bars and springs will press the inner wheel down an absolutely identical amount), we can talk sometime, but for now let's just take it as a given: a stiff bar reduces roadholding and traction in bumpy corners and in quick transitions.
Continued Next Installment


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (Ceilidh) Conclusion*

Bottom line, Cia (if you're still with me), your light rear bar on a stock suspension was a reasonable thing to try (assuming you first got the right wheels and tires), but if it's not enough, take it off, and go with springs. Once you try out the springs, if you feel the handling balance is not right (too much understeer), you can put the bar back on to see if it helps (if you have stiff springs, you can try a slightly heavier bar, too, as it's the ratio of bar to spring that counts, not the absolute stiffness of the bar). But if a mild to moderate bar doesn't do it, stop with the bar, and take a good look again at the springs (or even tires).
But before any of that, read the next section on Dampers!!
Springs and Dampers
I've pretty much covered springs and dampers (shocks) while discussing other things, but let me elaborate / explain some things that are going on with this thread. First a little summary
1) keep the front ride height fairly close to stock
2) if possible, use a rear spring that's been matched by somebody reputable (e.g., Shine, Neuspeed) to work with the front
3) for mild street use, don't get too concerned with rear ride height (Daemon42 and Dick Shine, please jump in if I'm leading him astray here!). A lowered rear will keep things under more control while heavily braking into corners (particularly bumpy corners), but if you're not the Demon of the Late Brakers, a stock-height rear will be more comfortable and more tolerant of road trips to Quebec Winter Carnival with all your friends and gear loaded on board. (But don't raise the rear relative to the front!! (as by using Jetta Wagon rear springs in a Golf....)).
4) When you have the springs, pick an appropriate shock (Koni, Bilstein TC or HD, or others), and don't worry too much about adjustability and settings. There's a lot of talk in this thread about using shock adjustments to tune handling. That's all well and good, but your goal is to use springs that give you close to the right handling balance, which you can then tweak with the bars (if required). If you really want to, you can then use shock adjustments to alter turn-in and other transient phenomena. But I'll repeat: the ideal is to get fairly close with the springs.
By the way, as for the advice: "Shocks are the ideal first mod", that's unfortunately just as true as the advice that "A rear sway bar is the ideal first mod". In fact, it's more so. (Yes, I'm being confusing - sorry!) A really high quality shock (e.g., Koni or Bilstein) can work wonders for handling (and in some respects even the ride comfort), as the body control on the stock A4 chassis is not wonderful. In fact, for a great many people, the shocks will so improve the handling that no further changes are necessary -- the car will not only turn in better and ride in a more controlled fashion, but it will seem to understeer less as well.
If you've read this whole post front beginning to here, you'll see that I've apparently recommended both a rear antiroll bar and a set of good shocks for a "first mod", which is of course a contradiction! I did so partly because I haven't tried a rear bar on a Golf and don't want to rule it out, and because there are some people out there who really wouldn't like the ride of a more heavily damped car (the ride can get a little "busy"), and who genuinely like the feel of a modest rear bar, and/or who sincerely want to reduce steady-state understeer. If I were personally forced to choose, however, I'd go with the shocks, as the improvement in everthing that matters to me (sharper turn in, improved general steering precision and placement, reduction in brake dive, reduction in heave and wallow on big bumps at speed, stability in fast left-right transitions) is much, much greater than anything I've gotten with bars in past cars. But again, I've never actually tried a rear bar on a Golf.
Hmmm again. I'm not being too clear. Let me try a different tack: our cars (Golfs and Jettas) are not that badly designed, and in stock form (particularly with the factory "Sport/GTI Suspension", the designers got the springs, bars, and geometries fairly nicely optimized (within the limitations of struts and twist beam suspensions -- which we can't change). To a great extent, however, this nice optimization is obscured by the relatively soft, ride-oriented stock damping. If you are absolutely in love with the stock ride, but simply want a little less roll and understeer, then a mild rear bar can make sense. But that's only for people who can't tolerate a more stiffly-damped ride. For a lot of other people (non-racers, anyway), improving the damping will bring out the qualities of the stock suspension so emphatically that no further change is needed; hence it's really worth trying early on.

5) Last thing: although the ideal is to get the handling close with the springs, you must have noticed that on this thread, we're all trying to find a rear spring that's different from the (Shine) front, and we're talking about fairly big shock adjustments to try to tweak handling. This is *not* an ideal situation, and it's one that's come about because of a special case:
It appears that for some number of people (the creator Pyce being one), the Shine rear spring is too stiff and low for comfort, but the Shine front spring (because of its ride height and spring rate) does wonderful things for handling and steering feel. These people are looking for a rear spring that (because of rate and perhaps height) is more comfortable. The use of a softer rear spring will tend towards a little more understeer (and perhaps to a little less stability under braking?), and Pyce has been experimenting to see if adjusting the shocks can help compensate for that in terms of "feel", but the end result, if successful, will be a car that "feels nice" -- not a car that is as fast or pure-handling as possible. (As for me, I need ground clearance for parking in wintertime Boston (lots of ice banks left by the plows), and I too care more about feel, rather than speed; hence my interest in Pyce's experiments).
Bottom bottom line: if you don't care about looks, have a rear bar already, and want better handling, make sure your tires are set, try better shocks, then maybe look into appropriate springs. Have fun, and stay warm!
- C
P.S. -- if you ever get the cash to go to a good racing school (Skip Barber, Jim Russell, or Bob Bondurant), do it!! It'll give you such a better idea of what you really want to shoot for...
And as always, many apologies for anyone I might have inadvertently offended, and please do point out where I've said something incorrect or misleading. Thanks!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Winst, you are probably one of the best things that happened to the vortex and it's people in a long time........ I do not have the knowledge to determine whether you are right about all the things you said, but would like to give you my thumbs up for the dedication you have for complete strangers! You are a real inspiration and fountain of knowledge! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Oh, before I start, here's a plug for someone I've never met: Daemon42 has recently posted some really, truly excellent explanations of sway (antiroll) bars, limited slip differentials, and general high-performance FWD handling issues on the "How does a sway bar work" thread ( http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=148337 ).


Actually, most of the info from that thread is quite old.
More references to posts of that nature can be found on my Various Posts page which I made
for myself just so I wouldn't have to repeat myself as often (not that it helps much). It has lowered my
post count in this forum a little though, as we can only rehash this stuff so many times. 

_Quote »_If your interest lies in maximum handling for hard driving (particularly in a traction-limited, high-powered car), there's very little that I can say that Daemon42 has not said better. (But conversely, if your interest lies more towards simply making your car a little "nicer" and more fun handling on rough real-world roads, keep reading here too!) 


Thanks for the props. However, you may have misunderstood some of my explanations as being 
targetted at no-compromise, maximum handling at the expense of comfort. I very rarely talk in terms 
of absolutes. I won't say "this is the only way it should be done", but will say "this is better than that" or 
"doing that will compromise the performance in such and such a way and here's why". Personally, I'm all 
about compromises, but I understand exactly what I'm giving up. My GTI-VR6 does not have the ultimate 
suspension. It's a hybrid just like pyce's and I've long been an advocate of the Shine "Lite" concept 
much to the chagrin of Dick Shine, who probably wishes the likes of us would just go away and stop 
dilluting the Shine name. What I do however, is push whatever suspension I have installed, right to the 
very limits and beyond (be it Auto-X, track days, snow driving, or just a really fun twisty road). I know 
for instance, what 10/10ths handling is like on a stock suspension, Shine "Lite" and Full Shine. I know 
what I'd run if handling were the only factor. But like many I live somewhere that the roads are not that 
great, and drive all over the western states which similarly crappy roads, so have chosen to trade some 
ultimate handling for comfort. 
However You might see me get a little short with someone who, after I've just explained the negative 
effects of lowering and big front sway bars, asks me.. "So what would happen if I added a 25mm front bar and 
Neuspeed lowering springs on stock dampers?" Most polite answer: "Nothing good." If this somehow gives
you the impression that I'm an advocate of no compromises "maximum handling", then I'd say the bar
is set pretty low. 
ian




_Modified by Daemon42 at 3:11 PM 1-16-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
Personally, I'm all 
about compromises, but I understand exactly what I'm giving up. My GTI-VR6 does not have the ultimate 
suspension. It's a hybrid just like pyce's and I've long been an advocate of the Shine "Lite" concept 
much to the chagrin of Dick Shine, who probably wishes the likes of us would just go away and stop 
dilluting the Shine name. 

So, what's your own setup then?


----------



## 13minutes (Sep 8, 2002)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
It's a hybrid just like pyce's and I've long been an advocate of the Shine "Lite" concept much to the chagrin of Dick Shine, who probably wishes the likes of us would just go away and stop 
dilluting the Shine name. 


Hmm, has there been a discussion over the "Shine lite" idea alone?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_

However You might see me get a little short with someone who, after I've just explained the negative 
effects of lowering and big front sway bars, asks me.. "So what would happen if I added a 25mm front bar and 
Neuspeed lowering springs on stock dampers?" Most polite answer: "Nothing good." If this somehow gives
you the impression that I'm an advocate of no compromises "maximum handling", then I'd say the bar
is set pretty low. 
ian
_Modified by Daemon42 at 3:11 PM 1-16-2004_

Hello Ian!
I'm not sure







, but I think I might have given a little offense. If so, please accept my apologies! I didn't mean to give the impression that you're a "max handling" guy(!), and my wording could have / should have been not nearly so misleading. My apologies again!
For what it's worth, what I was thinking when I wrote those lines is that a lot of your setup seems to be determined by a need for good traction out of corners and high corner exit speeds (correct me if I'm wrong?). You also drive your car hard, and really work the tires. As such your setup -- which clearly works well on the street, on real-world roads -- is excellent for someone who has both the skill and the confidence to flirt with the whole circumference of the tire friction envelopes. And that's all good! What I failed to explain to Cia (or to anyone else reading), but which I wanted to hurriedly get across, was that for many would-be "enthusiasts", a much milder state of tune might be more appropriate. As you well know, there are a number of people following these threads who -- out of sheer innocence -- kind of expect the rear end to always follow the front, and who might take a stab&steer approach to corner entry -- for these folks, a fair bit of stabilizing understeer coupled with a nice sharp initial turn in might be really all they want (no they might not become better drivers that way, but it'll be safer and they'll have some fun). But I never intended to imply your setup is not great for the real world, and again I apologize for having created that impression.
As for your getting "a little short" with people, I've never seen that. The first post I really took notice of you was one where you went back and forth for ages with someone who, besides being rather rude about it, was adamant that coilovers were somehow magically better than a matched spring & damper package, and that changing wire diameter or coil spacing or coil diameter on a spring that never achieves coil bind (or which has its varying parts squashed flat upon installation) somehow leads to progressive spring rates. I would have given up on that fellow after the 3rd or 4th post, but you kept at it, and I was impressed with your patience. In fact, one reason I've kept citing you and Pyce in particular is that both of you consistently write posts that are honest, thoughtful, polite, and unfailingly intended to help other people. So you're the last person I want to offend here, and I again am sorry if I created a different impression.








Anyway Ian, thanks for correcting the misimpressions I created, and I look forward to reading your continued posts on this and other threads. All the best!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (13minutes)*


_Quote, originally posted by *13minutes* »_
Hmm, has there been a discussion over the "Shine lite" idea alone?

Yes, it's come up before a number of times.
For my car, a Mk3 GTI-VR6 it consists of 
Shine Mk3 2.0 200lb front springs (keep in mind the Mk3 weighs 200-300 lbs less than Mk4)
Corrado SLC OEM rear springs (higher rate than GTI-VR6 rear springs by a small but noticeable margin)
Bilstein dampers all around and
the Shine rear sway bar
Sound familiar? (Pyce's setup is Shine 225lb front springs, Bilstein dampers, bit stiffer than OEM rear 
springs and Koni adjustable dampers and a Shine rear bar). There's also been plenty of talk
about putting Neuspeed Softsports on the 1.8t and so forth. 
The "concept" is minimal to no lowering (which is why it persists in being associated
with Shine, as there're the only ones who refuse to sell lowering springs of any kind)
and the rear spring rates lower than full Shine to improve subjective ride quality. 
Cap it off with a big fat rear sway bar, and no bigger than stock front sway bar (which
is also consistent with Shine philosophy although they sometimes advocate no front bar at all).
How else you adjust it (different dampers for instance) is up to you.
ian


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hello Ian!
I'm not sure







, but I think I might have given a little offense. If so, please accept my apologies! I didn't mean to give the impression that you're a "max handling" guy(!), and my wording could have / should have been not nearly so misleading. My apologies again!


No offense taken. I just try to be very careful about covering all the bases when I talk about
a subject as I like to avoid being misinterpretted or taken out of context. 

_Quote »_
For what it's worth, what I was thinking when I wrote those lines is that a lot of your setup seems to be determined by a need for good traction out of corners and high corner exit speeds (correct me if I'm wrong?). You also drive your car hard, and really work the tires.


That is true. I forgot to mention in my setup above that I also run between 1.5 and 1.8 degrees of static 
negative camber and sticky ass tires. With -1.8 degrees of camber per side, and a lot of twisty roads, my 
tires wear dead even across the tread, but then I only get about 6 to 9 thousand miles out of a set of summer 
tires (depending on whether I go to the track or not). Typically 1 set of summer tires per year and am lucky to 
get two winters out of a set of snow tires. 

_Quote »_
As such your setup -- which clearly works well on the street, on real-world roads -- is excellent for someone who has both the skill and the confidence to flirt with the whole circumference of the tire friction envelopes. And that's all good! What I failed to explain to Cia (or to anyone else reading), but which I wanted to hurriedly get across, was that for many would-be "enthusiasts", a much milder state of tune might be more appropriate. 


Also true. The problem is, very few people put their suspension questions in that context.
Everyone wants to believe that they are race car drivers (I'm not either) and are constantly pushing 
the envelope handling-wise. They rarely say "I really only ever need or use, about 80% of the 
performance of the car, and I value the look of a lowered car over best handling. What's
the best compromise suspension for me?" They ask "What is the best handling suspension
setup?" or "What is the effect of changing this one part of the suspension?" 
"How much better will my car handle with a 60mm drop?" 
It's not my job to BS folks and tell them that the best handling cars should also
have an idiot proof level of understeer, because I don't feel that is true. But if neutral handling 
or some induceable oversteer is possible with some suspension setup I am describing, I'll happily 
say so and provide appropriate warnings "dont lift off the gas midcorner.. don't run your tires 
at 50+ psi.. and do get on the gas if the rear end steps out" etc. I prefer education. If someone 
asks what is the best, I'll tell them what makes it the best. If they want to know my honest opinion 
about the effects of lowering, I'll tell em and so on. I just don't think everyone needs to be protected
from themselves. 

_Quote »_
As you well know, there are a number of people following these threads who -- out of sheer innocence -- kind of expect the rear end to always follow the front, and who might take a stab&steer approach to corner entry -- for these folks, a fair bit of stabilizing understeer coupled with a nice sharp initial turn in might be really all they want (no they might not become better drivers that way, but it'll be safer and they'll have some fun). 


I know, and for them, there's dozens of different types of conservative, sporty looking suspension choices 
available discussed here ad nasium. 
I generally stay out of most of those discussions. What I'm after personally is the best handling car 
at an acceptible comfort level (which is why I'll haunt a thread like this one), but will also discuss what 
elements make for maximum handling as well. 
I also won't advocate the use of a suspension setup that would be dangerous for the average 
enthusiast. You can still spin the car on the stock suspension. My own car is not twitchy, or 
unforgiving at all, particularly with the tires I use. I've had a number of people drive my car locally
while I'm sitting in the passenger seat, and I'll tell em "you can take that corner 15mph faster, just
stay on the gas" and I mean it, am comfortable when they do so, and sometimes they actually believe me.









_Quote »_
As for your getting "a little short" with people, I've never seen that. 


My idea of "getting short with someone" often manifests itself with me simply ignoring them, 
which some people also take offense at. It's a lose lose situation because I can either tell em I 
think they're making a mistake and why, which they don't want to hear, or not say anything 
at all which they don't want to hear either. People often read more into what I don't
say than what I do.
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_........ At this point I felt little *uncomfortable* just on couple of stretches of road with very uneven surface *at highway speed*, but the Konis are also on 25% stiff at the moment too. I am pretty positive that going down to 12-13% stiff (1/4 turn) would resolve that, as I now know what the Konis can do with just a 1/4 of turn..... Yes, I think I will not be so far off if I say that the only discomfort happens *on high speed and not-so-great roads*. The low speed crap road is pretty well taken......

You guys have no idea how much I wanted to scream "victory" but just got back from another drive, only highway drive at highway speeds and unfortunately have to say that the Konis on full soft and even the lower tire pressure did NOT make the trick for this one. The car is not very comfortable on highway speeds. I really thought the Koni 0% Stiff will help solving it, as they did on the other springs, but for some reason (beyond my understanding) the situation did not change much...... The darn thing is that otherwise it is really one beautiful combo! City driving and slower speeds is really, really nice. But at highway speeds "almost" it is like I am riding on the buffers, and I know I am not on them as they are almost not there....... I know it may sound stupid and out of sense and whatever you name it, but it is a fact and I am not sure I can live with it. For some of you may be the perfect setup as it really holds the road (my driving style) very well, but I spend way too much on highways and highway speeds and I also run out of tricks to make it softer. I would not go lower with tire pressure as I do not like the sub 30 PSI numbers, made me feel that I am snowboarding and the delay in response (to me) gets too much...... I really do not know what else to think. By the way, we are now at 1" flat of lowering, for some reason it continues going lower each day, and it is not because of the tire's pressure because I double measure from the center of the wheel to the top of the gap above......... 
Anybody have them? I really need a second opinion on this from real life experience, as to confirm that I am not dreaming or going nuts with age. Could it be that my rear axel is somehow screwed and absolutely for some reason (bad bushings, etc) absolutely can't react well on lowering and because these springs continue "diving" each day - it gets worse? It really sounds idiotic to say it, but I feel that this afternoon all of it got worse somehow, it is like someone increased the spring rates after lunch.....


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

I can't say this is actually the problem, but you might consider that as you lower the damping of
the Konis you're increasing the compression/rebound frequency of the rear springs some. It may 
simply be out of sync with the front enough that you're getting a little of that bucking bronco 
syndrome. The spring rates don't have to be high to do this, just not matched well to each
other between front and rear. Our bodies just react very poorly to pitch changes
but can handle faster straight up and down motions just fine (which is why a very well
matched coilover setup with much higher rate springs, can feel more comfortable). 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_.....you're getting a little of that bucking bronco 
syndrome......

This is new to me..... what happnes with the bronocs? Thanks.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
This is new to me..... what happnes with the bronocs [broncos]? Thanks.

When the car goes over a bump each end of the car rises and falls several times
at a frequency determined by the rate of the springs, damping, weight distribution of the
car and suspension geometry. What you want is for both ends to 
rise and fall in sync until everything settles out. In actuality the rear can be
a little slower than the front, without any significant problems as long as it damps out
at near the same time as the front. But if the rear frequency 
is higher than the front, the ride quality will almost immediately feel very bad. The car 
rises and falls and rises again, but the rear is going faster so after the rebound the car 
is pitches forward and then back down before the front catches up, which is very uncomfortable. 
Our inner ears are extremely attuned to changes in pitching motions (that's leaning forward or 
back) because we are animals that balance precariously on two feet so the body must sense 
and react to changes in pitch very quickly. 
I can't say for sure that this is your current problem. All I was saying was that a change in 
damping (lowering it) can actually result in it feeling like you have higher spring rates in the rear 
if the change has resulted in the rear rebound frequency getting significantly out of sync with the 
front. High damping will slow the frequency and decreases the length of time that it continues 
to bounce. Low damping will increase the frequency a little, and make it go on longer (perhaps longer
than the fronts). Pretend for a moment that you eliminated the rear dampers entirely
and consider what would happen. Hit a bumpt and front end goes up and down say 2 or 3 
times and is damped out, while rear is still bouncing up and down. It'll feel very uncomfortable.
Since I don't have Koni adjustables I can't really speculate on how little damping they
provide at full soft, but it's something to consider. 
ian


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

bummer you don't live by me, I'd help you switch the front springs too. Please get the measurements of such. That said you may want to try them (the H&R front) with Koni.
I checked around and found no listing for a MK4 H&R OE spring? Where did you get them and the price. Thanks.
Going full soft won't work as the spring just fly out during rebound and transfers weight to the front, which then transfer weight to the back. You need some rebound dampening.
This weekend I'll work on my sounds, and maybe some performance mods


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*

Ian, makes sense and I have no choice but to try to go up with the rebound. It was stiffy on the 25% and it is not nice on high speeds and crap roads on 0% stiff - so, next we go with the 10-15% stiff and see what happens. I will not give up on this spring easy, as it is very nice in curves.... Going on a long drive tomorow too, so we see how it will be..... thanks for the replies!
Oldman, I would NOT install the front H&R, no way! This was advertised as 0,5 drop all around and it is already a pure 1" drop in the rear. I have my reasons to believe that the front is going down more than 0,5" and that is already too much for us. I rather change 10 more rear springs and if nothing really works - go back to stock rear, but would never replace the front Shine! that ride height is the only one!







If you want the front H&R< I can give it to you for experiement, let me know


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

OK but at least let me pay for the postage to and fro. Please post coil counts and diameter first, so we can compare them to the Softsport. 
I like your testing so far. You may want to use my clamp /spacer /clamp as it is really easy to tune the rear spring and I can go from stock to stiffer than shine 200 with the setup. Can change height too. Takes one vice and about 10 minutes a side.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_You guys have no idea how much I wanted to scream "victory" but just got back from another drive, only highway drive at highway speeds and unfortunately have to say that the Konis on full soft and even the lower tire pressure did NOT make the trick for this one. The car is not very comfortable on highway speeds. I really thought the Koni 0% Stiff will help solving it, as they did on the other springs, but for some reason (beyond my understanding) the situation did not change much...... 
Anybody have them? I really need a second opinion on this from real life experience, as to confirm that I am not dreaming or going nuts with age. Could it be that my rear axel is somehow screwed and absolutely for some reason (bad bushings, etc) absolutely can't react well on lowering and because these springs continue "diving" each day - it gets worse? It really sounds idiotic to say it, but I feel that this afternoon all of it got worse somehow, it is like someone increased the spring rates after lunch..... 

I think a couple of people responded already, you gotto up the rebound. I have talked to Koni before, they say full-soft for stock springs and more rebound for extra spring rate compared to stock. So, if H&R OE is 10-15% stiffer, then the logical rebound rate for the Konis would be 10-15% stiffer or somewhere around there. The adjustability is mostly there to match the spring rate rather than gaining comfort.
It's also very interesting that it's sagging that much. That's why I didn't buy H&R springs after my bad experience with their cupkits. My Nuespeed Sport is supposed to lower 1.5", in practice it's about 1.3" and I put it beside an H&R sport GTI 1.8T (just like mine) and his car was AT LEAST 0.5" lower than mine where it should lower the same!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_OK but at least let me pay for the postage to and fro. Please post coil counts and diameter first, so we can compare them to the Softsport. 
I like your testing so far. You may want to use my clamp /spacer /clamp as it is really easy to tune the rear spring and I can go from stock to stiffer than shine 200 with the setup. Can change height too. Takes one vice and about 10 minutes a side.

That would be very interestin to know. As far as I have heard (and seen), the Sofsport is DEFINATELY stiffer.


----------



## ~cia~ (Oct 30, 2003)

I'm about halfway thru page 8 (i'm taking notes) and all i can say is . . . . . . WOW!
I can't explain how truely impressed i am with the caliber of people and their knowledge displayed in this thread. 
Your time and effort has not gone un-noticed (<- not sure on spelling) and the impact of this thread, i perdict, will be substantial for many others including myself!
A big thank you is in order for everyone who participated. I'm sure countless others will be thanking you aswell in the future.
If your ever near "Casino Windsor", drop me a line! (Drinks are on me)
~ Cheers and thank you!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*

Hi Peter,

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
You guys have no idea how much I wanted to scream "victory" but just got back from another drive, only highway drive at highway speeds and unfortunately have to say that the Konis on full soft and even the lower tire pressure did NOT make the trick for this one. The car is not very comfortable on highway speeds. I really thought the Koni 0% Stiff will help solving it, as they did on the other springs, but for some reason (beyond my understanding) the situation did not change much...... The darn thing is that otherwise it is really one beautiful combo! City driving and slower speeds is really, really nice. But at highway speeds "almost" it is like I am riding on the buffers, and I know I am not on them as they are almost not there....... I know it may sound stupid and out of sense and whatever you name it, but it is a fact and I am not sure I can live with it. For some of you may be the perfect setup as it really holds the road (my driving style) very well, but I spend way too much on highways and highway speeds and I also run out of tricks to make it softer. 

Peter,
Could you please, to the best of your ability, write a post describing exactly how the ride is uncomfortable at highway speeds? In particular, please:
1) on each point, specifically indicate how the feel of the current setup differs from the stock rear spring, and from the stiffer Shine (e.g., "at 65 mph there's a high frequency jiggle at the rear; I never felt that jiggle at all with the stock spring, but it was there, and worse, with the Shine" -- or something like that).
2) describe to me the road conditions on which the discomfort is arising /becomes worse/ becomes better/ disappears, etc. Similary describe the speeds. And please tell me exactly what went away and what stayed when you fiddled with shock settings.
3) if you can, please try to describe the discomfort in physical terms: is it continuous, or intermittent? Is it a jostling, or vibration, or is it a series of jolts? Do you feel pitching, or is it coming through the seat of your pants, from the rear? Are there audible noises (thuds and impact sounds) associated with the discomfort? Can you get any sense at all of the frequency of the motion? (If you're musically inclined, take the pacing of the jostling and subdivide it into a 60 tempo to roughly estimate the frequency -- I basically need to know if it's in the the 1-2 hertz range or in the faster 4+ hertz domain.
4) As an experiment, if there's some sort of across-the-road bump or dip that you can take at highway speeds (a big expansion joint, or a sewer-line patch, etc.), please drive over it and note (A) how comfortable is the front; (B) how comfortable is the rear; and (C) whether there's a noticeable pitching sensation as you pass over the bump. If there is pitch (and this will might be tough), try to distinguish whether it's pitching on the initial bump (while the front is on its way up), or on the back side of the cycle (while the front is on its way down).
Ian, I don't dispute your practical experience with these cars, but standard design practice is to have the rear ride rate slightly faster (about 10-15%), not slower, than the front rates; when they're reversed (front rate faster than rear), the pitching is usually much worse on the first overshoot. But that's a generality, and it's interesting that Pyce didn't have this problem with the softer stock springs. Maybe he's so tightly damped now that he's pitching on the initial bump, and perhaps there's no overshoot at all? That would certainly explain why it didn't show up with the stock spring, and that would also account for your experience with high rear spring rates....
5) Finally Peter, could you please remind me what tire size you're on (it's the 205/55-16, right)? And you're not going to like this, but could you please go right down to 26 psi (or whatever the factory spec is on a Jetta), and tell me how it feels when you do that?
Sorry for all the requests, but if you could try that and post your observations before Monday morning, I'll try to get back to you before the work week starts (to the Canadians, we have a national holiday on Monday). Your problem is certainly interesting! But if you can present the systematic symptoms, that would help a lot. Thanks, and I'm sorry it's not quite there yet








Cheers -- W
P.S. -- if you don't have time to be systematic, I'm really interested in whether it's a fast-paced jiggle, semi-continuous jiggle coming from the rear that arises even on an apparently smooth highway, vs a much more straightforward bang-bump-stagger on obvious bumps, vs a pitching motion. For what it's worth, I got the jiggle on both my GTI and one of the MGs when I went too high on shocks (but you're getting it at full soft, right?). But if you possibly can, please do the 26 psi experiment, and the driving-over-an-isolated-bump-or-dip experiment. Thanks!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
By the way, we are now at 1" flat of lowering, for some reason it continues going lower each day, and it is not because of the tire's pressure because I double measure from the center of the wheel to the top of the gap above......... 
It really sounds idiotic to say it, but I feel that this afternoon all of it got worse somehow, it is like someone increased the spring rates after lunch..... 

Peter, on the first point, you can get "settling" on a spring in initial use if the heat treating was poorly done, most notably by omitting or botching up the annealing/ normalizing process that "cooks" the internal stresses out of the spring. When that happens, the internal stresses slowly work their way out of the spring during use, and the spring "settles".
The second point is weird. I don't have enough experience with automotive springs to say whether a stiffening with time is something that happens (anybody out there with experience?), but it's theoretically possible if there are a lot of internal stresses (from poor heat treating), the yield strength of the steel is low (again, due to poor heat treating), and the initial load cycles actually push parts of the spring (the parts with high initial stress) past yield point (after which the metal is no longer "springy", but actually undergoes plastic flow). But if that's the case, the sagging and the stiffening should happen pretty rapidly, after a relatively small number of bump cycles, and the spring should very soon stabilize at a shorter and stiffer configuration. Is the sagging and stiffening still happening? If so, I can't explain it. Anyway, this is just an aside....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (Ceilidh) - spring stiffening*

Hello again, Peter
(Just saw "Big Fish" -- fun movie....







)
Regarding your stiffening spring: I've thought more about it, and there seems no way there could be enough plastic yielding that you'd be able to feel a change in spring rate. So a question: are the H&R rears one of those springs with a moderate number of closely-spaced coils at one end, which are meant to be squashed flat upon installation? If not, ignore the rest of this post; but if so, here's a more plausible conjecture for why your springs seem to be stiffening (and perhaps why they're riding poorly on the highway):
If the H&R's have those close-spaced end coils, it's possible that when you first installed them, the end coils didn't all squash flat, and/or (more likely) the transition region between the normal coils and the close-spaced coils was gradual enough that you had a fraction of an additional active coil; that would have given you an initially softer ride. But as the springs settled, the end-coils fully closed up and/or (more likely) the transition area "wound itself" down and stiffened the spring.
As an aside, if the transition area is really gradual, you in essence have a truly but accidentally progressive spring on initial load, one that at static ride height is somewhat softer than intended, but which rapidly stiffens to full rate with a bit of wheel bump. If that's the case, you'd have an okay ride at lower speeds and smoother roads (which don't deflect the suspension that much), but a stiffer ride at higher speeds and bumpier roads when the coils close up and the spring stiffens. Is that what you're feeling? Or is the bad highway ride occuring even on smooth roads? -- please explain!
Anyway, if the springs don't have those close-spaced end coils, none of the above applies, and I don't understand why your spring rate might be rising.
I'm kind of hoping the above is all wrong, by the way, because if what you're feeling is the result of a poorly-wound spring that's stiffening up under compression, there might not be a whole lot you can do about it.
Oh, and as for (fairly crude) diagnostics: (1) does the bumpy ride you're complaining about feel equally bad when you drive over a bump vs. drive over a dip? The above mechanism (a stiffening spring on bump) will only be at work when the spring is compressing; if that's the cause, then when you drive over a sudden dip in the road, you won't feel much of an initial jolt (because the spring's extending as the wheel drops) until the wheel starts to come up again on the far side of the dip; the sensation will be "okay (as the wheel drops), then bang! (as the wheel comes back up, or as the body slams downwards onto the wheels)") Conversely, (2) if the ride feels immediately bad when you drive over a dip (as the wheels drop, they feel like they're grabbing the body and jolting it downwards), you could be overdamped (which I kind of doubt, as you should then have felt this sensation back on the stock springs as well). Finally, (3) if the ride is fine on the initial down-up of the wheels, but the discomfort comes a very short bit after the dip/bump has passed by, then you might be coming into the pitch & damping issues that Ian and Alexb are suggesting -- that is, you're a little underdamped, and the suspension is overshooting enough to bring in pitch effects (that's why I've asked you to find a single bump/dip on an otherwise smooth road -- the behaviour there would help with the diagnostics).
Good luck, and please keep us posted!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Pyce -- some convergence on thinking*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
When the car goes over a bump each end of the car rises and falls several times
at a frequency determined by the rate of the springs, damping, weight distribution of the
car and suspension geometry. What you want is for both ends to 
rise and fall in sync until everything settles out. In actuality the rear can be
a little slower than the front, without any significant problems as long as it damps out
at near the same time as the front. But if the rear frequency 
is higher than the front, the ride quality will almost immediately feel very bad. The car 
rises and falls and rises again, but the rear is going faster so after the rebound the car 
is pitches forward and then back down before the front catches up, which is very uncomfortable. 
Our inner ears are extremely attuned to changes in pitching motions (that's leaning forward or 
back) because we are animals that balance precariously on two feet so the body must sense 
and react to changes in pitch very quickly. 
I can't say for sure that this is your current problem. All I was saying was that a change in 
damping (lowering it) can actually result in it feeling like you have higher spring rates in the rear 
if the change has resulted in the rear rebound frequency getting significantly out of sync with the 
front. High damping will slow the frequency and decreases the length of time that it continues 
to bounce. Low damping will increase the frequency a little, and make it go on longer (perhaps longer
than the fronts). Pretend for a moment that you eliminated the rear dampers entirely
and consider what would happen. Hit a bumpt and front end goes up and down say 2 or 3 
times and is damped out, while rear is still bouncing up and down. It'll feel very uncomfortable.
Since I don't have Koni adjustables I can't really speculate on how little damping they
provide at full soft, but it's something to consider. 
ian

Peter (Pyce),
I think I've found a way to reconcile Ian's experience with my own (and with what the textbooks all say about ride and pitch):
First off, as Ian says, the human body is much more bothered by pitch than it is by pure bounce, and great pains are taken to ensure that production cars minimize pitching motions (the measures taken to minimize pitch usually increase the level of vertical bounce, but that's a more than acceptable tradeoff).
Secondly, again as Ian says, the goal is to get both ends of the car rising and falling at the same time.
The difference in experience (which I think I now know how to resolve







) lies in how to minimize that pitch:
1) Pitching in a car arises simply because the front wheel hits a bump before the back wheel does. If the ride rates at both ends of the car are identical (meaning both front and back ends bounce at the same frequency), when the car drives over a bump, the front bounces up first, and then the rear follows. That gives you pitch.
2) Stay with the front rate = rear rate example for a bit longer: if the car is going really fast, and the ride rates are pretty long, then the car doesn't pitch very much -- yes, the front hits the bump first and starts to rise, but the bounce rate is so long that the front is still on its way up when the rear hits the bump and begins to rise as well. Thus for a period of time both front and back are rising, then there's a brief period when the front starts to fall but the rear is still rising, then there's a period when both front and rear are both falling. In this situation you have mostly bounce, and just a little pitch.
3) Next (still on the front rate = rear rate case), consider what happens if the car is going a bit slower and/or the ride rates are a bit quicker: the front hits the bump first, begins to go up, then --- just when the front hits the top of its bounce and begins to fall, the rear hits the bump and starts to rise. This gives you the worst of all worlds, as the rear then rises as the front comes down, and then a little later the front bounces back up as the rear begins to fall, and so on and so on: this is pure pitch.
4) Ok, now let's go to an intermediate case (which is more normal) -- note that we're still assuming that front and rear ride rates are equal: the front hits a bump, and starts to rise. While it's still rising, the rear hits the bump, and begins to rise as well; and then a little later the front begins to fall while the rear is still rising. We now have both pitch and bounce. How do we get rid of the pitch?
5) Well, the problem is that the front has hit the bump first, and its peak and trough (its high point and low point as it bounces) are occurring before the peak and trough of the rear (which hits the bump later). If we can get the peaks and troughs to match up, then we don't have pitch, we have only bounce. The solution then? Speed up the rear.
6) If we make the rear ride rate a little higher than the front, meaning the rear bounces up and down a little more rapidly then does the front, we can get the following situation: the front hits a bump first, and begins to rise; a little later, the rear hits and begins to rise as well; then the front reaches the top of its cycle, and begins to drop -- but because the rear is bouncing faster, the rear hits the top of its cycle at roughly the same time as the front, and both front and rear drop together. Hence we've eliminated pitch, and have turned it into pure bounce.
7) Now, the astute will point out with horror to what will happen next: because the rear rate is higher, and both front and rear begin falling at the same time, the rear will reach the bottom of its cycle first, and will begin bouncing up while the front is still falling. Hence we're now back in pitching mode. The way to get around that is to introduce enough damping so that the bouncing back up is so reduced that the resulting pitching motion is comfortably small. That is, we use a faster rear ride rate to convert the big initial motion into something close to pure bounce, then let the dampers reduce the ensuing pitch to something bearable in size.
8) Thus the way to minimize pitching motions in a car is to use a rear ride rate that's a little faster than the front rate, and to arrange for enough damping that neither end of the car oscillate very significantly for much more than a cycle. In practice (given normal highway speeds, normal ride rates, and normal wheel bases), the way to minimize pitch is usually to have the rear rate about 10-15% faster than the front.
9) Just by the way, there are very few cars which, in stock form, have rear ride rates lower than the front. I think a Morgan 4/4 I rode in once had such a set up, and the ride was simply awful (but then again, being a Morgan, the ride was pretty awful for a very large number of reasons). The reason it's bad is because a fast front ride rate essentially ensures that the front starts falling while the rear is still rising -- and that gives you pitch during the big initial movement, which is uncomfortable.
10) So here's the possible reconciliation with Ian's experience, where (apparently) increases in rear ride rate worsen the ride via pitch: if a 10-15% faster rear serves to minimize pitch, a rear that's more than 10-15% faster will begin to bring it back in. That's because (again, on normal speeds at normal ride rates on normal wheelbases) you can get into the situation where the fast-bouncing rear starts to fall while the front is still rising. If you get into that situation, further increases in rear ride rate (as by installing a stiffer spring) will make things even worse. Hence it's possible that by damping a bit harder (which slightly slows the ride rate) might actually help.
11) Personally, I'm not leaning towards spring-rate-induced pitch being your problem, mostly because you didn't mind the ride you had with Shine fronts but stock rear springs: by installing the stiff Shine fronts, you sped up the front ride rate (by 22%, if you went from 150 lb/in to 225 lb/in), while keeping the rear at the stock ride rate; hence compared with the stock pitch-minimizing configuration, you had made the rears too slow relative to the fronts. Thus you will not have been in the situation where the rears were too fast, and speeding up the rears by installing the H&Rs should have made things better pitch-wise, not worse. But anything is possible I guess, and maybe a way-too-fast-front can also put you in the position where a faster rear is bad (if someone can tell me what the actual wheel (not spring) rates are on these cars, I can do the calculation for real to check).
12) If your problem really is pitch related, then my personal guess it'd be due to an underdamped rear (because you've now put on a stiffer spring) allowing the body to oscillate more cycles than it should; as noted above, allowing either end to bounce multiple cycles will unavoidably lead to pitch problems. This of course leads you right back around to Ian's and Alexb's suggestion to tighten the damping, which in such a case should certainly help.
Beyond this, Peter, I'm basically out of ideas (though if you post more detailed observations, it might spark some inspiration). If you're certain that the spring rate is rising as the car settles, my inclination is that you've a gradual coil transition that is stiffening your spring on moderate wheel bounce (as can occur on bumpy roads at high speed), in which case you might simply have to find a softer spring if you want to be more comfortable. But I'd be very happy to hear I'm wrong, and that upping the rear shock damping actually helped.







Oh, and I'm still musing over your last week's post, that lowering the rear increases ride harshness, so maybe that's a factor too...are there spacers you can install to raise the rear while keeping the same spring rate?
Cheers - W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Anybody have them? I really need a second opinion on this from real life experience, as to confirm that I am not dreaming or going nuts with age. Could it be that my rear axel is somehow screwed and absolutely for some reason (bad bushings, etc) absolutely can't react well on lowering and because these springs continue "diving" each day - it gets worse? It really sounds idiotic to say it, but I feel that this afternoon all of it got worse somehow, it is like someone increased the spring rates after lunch..... 

Hey man, don't worry. The thing is that you've been experimenting with this for a very long time. At this point you are so concious about every little thing that evaluating ride comfort (which is very subjective) can be almost impossible with little changes. I sometime on my own car feel a difference in ride comfort from one day to next without changing anything. It could be just how it felt at that moment "to you". http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

like you said, hey yesterday was 70 degrees and my car was fine, smooth as stock and could really turn. Now it is like 45 degrees and the tires are slide sideways ice skates and the ride is stiff too. We also know it takes a few miles to build up air bubbles in the low pres. twin tube shocks.
Right now I have VR6 front, stock rear springs, Bil TC plain, and shine RSB. I really think I'm at 90% and far more than my 17 inch conti tires can take. I should add that I have a ride like a stock GTI, of course it performes much better than a stock GTI.
So IMO, and this is after a whole lot of testing: If you got a 4 banger MK4, then VR6 front springs, Bil TC or Koni, Shine RSB is the perfect street setup. Ultimate grip won't be as good as shine, but the ride is at stock GTI levels. A comprimise that most people would be willing to make. Oldman suspension.
Golf owners should look for a set of springs from a VR6 Jetta, while Jetta drivers need only to look for the front VR6 springs, or the Jetta driver may just put in $5.00 rubber spacers for the EXACT same effect. Meaning the VR6 Jetta springs are worth some money say $50.00 and all other OEM springs are completely worthless. Don't kow anything about a NB... Maybe time for a new post?
Here is the list:
Got Jetta:
Get VR6 front springs ww/bb or (bbbb/w which should be from a 24 VR6). don't know about any other combinations so please don't ask. If you don't want to be ripped off by guys trying to sell their stock springs or have already done dampers with stock springs then just put 1.5 inch rubber spacers in the front springs.
Golf owner: Jetta VR6 springs (complete set), second choice would be a VR6 based Golf, but I have no idea of the rear rate. The older GTI 1.8T run the exact same spring as a Jetta. It is really too hard to mix and match. So either buy 1) Jetta VR6 springs F&R or 2) Golf based VR6 springs and take your chances on the rear. The normal Jetta rear spring is green/G/G/Silver and this is the same on many GTI 1.8T and maybe even the VR6 Golfs.
NB, don't know. I'm sure the Jetta VR6 springs would work and be an upgrade, so I'll leave it at that.
All other combinations will just cost money and time and there is no easy way to find all the spring codes. So why even try?
I know the snake oil sales guys, that the guys with say 1.8T with sports suspension or GTI etc trying to sell you their sports springs, at best they are about as stiff as a stock Jetta in the rear. The fronts are just Jetta springs with 1 coil cut off from the factory for the most part (the famous pink/ purple spring). So don't waste your money.
Spring values:
VR6 24V Jetta: most say $75.00 a set.
VR6 Jetta with bb/ww front and ggg/s rear second most say $40.00
VR6 Golf, is a maybe for Golf guys.
All others, if you get them for under $20.00 including shipping and know how to measure them, and can do all your own work.
Stock dampers are worth NOTHING, even free, even new, even "sports".










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 10:49 PM 1-18-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (oldmanTDI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *oldmanTDI* »_
Golf owner: Jetta VR6 springs (complete set), second choice would be a VR6 based Golf, but I have no idea of the rear rate. The older GTI 1.8T run the exact same spring as a Jetta. It is really too hard to mix and match. So either buy 1) Jetta VR6 springs F&R or 2) Golf based VR6 springs and take your chances on the rear. The normal Jetta rear spring is green/G/G/Silver and this is the same on many GTI 1.8T and maybe even the VR6 Golfs.
_Modified by oldmanTDI at 10:49 PM 1-18-2004_

Oldman, Thank you so very much!! This is *exactly* the info I've been looking for!
Just to confirm: will a Jetta VR6 spring set give me front and rear springs that are both stiffer than the front and rears on my 2000 GTI 1.8T, or will the rears be the same stiffness? And do you have an idea how much my ride height will increase, front and rear?
Thank you very very much again for collecting and posting this info -- you guys are absolutely great! (And Alexb75 and f1forkvr6, thank you for your great posts too -- I've always enjoyed reading them!) Oldman, again, I really appreciate your putting this together(!) - I'll try it this spring/summer when I do my front shocks, and will let you know how it works out.
Cheers


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

most GTI were very close to the stock Jetta rear and most of the 2000 to 2001 were green/green/green/silver. 
So get a set of VR6 front springs. I assume the VR6 Golf springs are the same stiffness as the Jetta fronts. b\b\w\w is a sure thing. You could always mic them .520 to .55 with 6 to 7 coils for the front. Compare this to the .500 6 coil + spacer of the GTI pink / purple. 
Need Shine RSB of course and dampers.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Konis go in the front too ......*

Sorry everybody for the long delay, but so many things happened in the last two days, that I do not even know where to start from. I hope you all going to have patience and read all this post as I am going to try to tell several pretty important things..... I would also like to thank again all of you who took the time to reply and be so patient to seat down and "work" together on this with me. The information in this topic is so much and so right, that some time I wish we can just "pause" it for few days or a week, no postings, no nothing, just read and re-read it again and try to analyze everything few more times as it is really a lot more than what I can digest in only few days...... But let me try to start with this post, which may become the longest I ever wrote.....
Celildh, first of all I want to say few things to you ...... You take all thins time, seating and writing with unbelievable amount of possible solutions, causes and so on, in an attempt to try to help me to find the solution for the combo I have and I really truly appreciate it, and do not even know how to thank you properly for this..... but at the same time I start having doubts that I am not really up to the task to actually understand 100% the behavior of my car and report it to you (and the rest of the interested people) correctly! I feel little bit like being the only one who survived in an airplane that is in flight and now I have to land this thing and you are giving me tons of info, based on which I have to identify the problem the plane has, solve it and land safely. I went very carefully through the whole last page and read all the things that you and Ian wrote, but when it comes down to go out and find out the different types of suspension behavior, the frequency it works (front versus rear) and the relation to all this vs. speed, etc - then I am really not sure I can give an accurate answers on this part. Yes, sure, I can go out and tell you tons of things that I feel or think, but it may not be accurate and a small mistake on my side may lead this whole thing to wrong conclusions and we may discard this experiment because of my lack of knowledge in how to differentiate all this, even if actually it may be very valid option for us. Do not get me wrong, I just see that you are putting a lot of effort in this and I am just afraid in not being able to respond to you in the way you are expecting. The whole point is, I do not want to mislead or misjudge, but it may eventually happen, so take all my words and findings with the due skepticism....

A lot of people here believe what I am doing is wrong and I am the type who tries to listen to everyone and try to evaluate, but it can be very confusing some time when almost everyone have different opinion on the same matter. I have been thinking about this a lot lately. It is disturbing to read, for example, that the suspension combination I have would definitely lead me to a very severe under steer, but at the same time I have nothing like that. So, the first thing that comes to mind (and we have to clarify) is the driving style. We all drive differently, but we seldom talk bout this, which I think it is big part of the picture we neglect. So, in an attempt to understand where our ideas split, I can try to describe in few words what do I consider a "spirited driving style"..... To begin with, I think I do exploit the handling potential of the car at about 50% to maybe maximum of 60% in some occasions. A lot of people here believe they do drive their car at the limit or near it, but I doubt it very much, It is not an easy call to tell yourself "I am very far from being fast" because we all enthusiasts here and we all somehow believe we are very good behind the wheel, but in real life, there are probably 10 to 15% (from the people here) who are really good and really know what the real limit is and know very well where they stand! There are so many driving styles, I guess it is almost as many as our living styles. Mine is pretty simple. I do not like shifting gears like maniac, do not like revving the engine high, do not like to throw the car in a curve, but lead it gently into. the whole braking (if any) is done in the straight line. No downshifting (my engine has no braking power, so why bother), just slowly, politely lead the car into the curve, no brakes, no gas, just glide in it, no corrections either, turn the steering wheel once (slowly) till it reaches the right angle at which I keep it till the end, for then slowly turn it back to straight! On roads I do not know, I do not push, safety first! On roads I know, then I know what is the speed I can go thought and I go, gently, smooth, the steering wheel gradually turns, stays there and gradually turns back at the end. Glide to the apex and then slowly apply go pedal. At the same time the tires slowly start squealing, with the highest squeal around the apex and then slowly go to quiet again. The "curve" of that musing tells me how smooth the transition was and how ideal the line was. Again, there is no shifting, no braking, no anything that would disturb the "designing" of that smooth line through the corner. It perfectly matches also the engine I have, full with torque down low, so I do not need to work with the gears as to get good exit later. Here is also the reason I like Touring tires, because they squeal and by that sound I can judge where and when did I go out of the ideal line of the curve, etc. Also, what I noticed going through few suspension setups, is that you can recognize a good suspension setup much easier with Touring tires. The fact they are going to scream at lower speed on certain corners (driving style the same) to me means the geometry this setup provides is not good. The method may be wrong, but it worked for me so war. So, some of you may say why am I wasting your time to say all this - simply because a lot of answers are probably right here! Because maybe this is the reason why Tyrol can't figure out why is my setup working for me while in his mind it should not work any good. I guess my driving style is such that can promote many setups, meanwhile other people may find them terribly under steering or over steering. An old friend of mine in Europe, who's rally driver, many times tried to convince me that if I "throw" the car where I want and push it harder, etc I would be faster and get better results, and I actually tried it, but it is not me. Just do not like to "force" the things, but rather gently guide them. So, even if someone ever comes and tells me, here is this car for you, setup in a way that you have to "throw" it around, I would not drive it that way. It may make me lose the race, who cares, it is just not me and I would not enjoy driving it that way, so why bother.............. The whole reason I went through all this is, because I really think I am very far from being a good tester for suspension setups. My driving style is "too soft" probably and probably cars with so-so suspension may get promoted easily and can suite me very well, but those setups are by no means "winners" when compared in a race or some other sort of competition. Here, I think, is the whole reason of why I really like the setup I have today and why almost no one else thinks it could be any near a good setup. The thing may actually very under steering, like some said, but with my driving style, I would never even give it a chance to under steer, because again, I would never "throw" the car inside the curve, and that is where most of the time the under steer manifests. Then can occur again if you start accelerating too much or closing slowly the radius, but here is where my tires tell me so much about it and I would simply not even get closer to the situation where under steering would begin...... So, to conclude on this matter, to me this setup works great, but it may actually work only for me and it may be a very poor setup for all the rest of you. Somebody else, with different, more aggressive driving style has to try it, only then we will know for sure. I really do not think I can promote it as "great" for everybody......... Sorry, it was too much about me and me, but I had to say it because it was an unknown very important variable for this case.
This said, on Saturday we had this big off-road get together somewhere in north California and it was a perfect drive along the coast and through some really small technical roads, with a lot of curves and ups and downs. Basically, a very good chance to see what this combo really gives-takes on the curvy roads. We were like 10-15 cars too, so, ideal situation to see how it compare to the rest. Well, now that you know how I drive it, I decided to drive the car as I would drive the Full Shine I had driven many times on those roads. I know the roads really well there too. The confidence was building pretty fast and soon I was able to drive the car like I always drove my car there. Again, it may mean nothing because it was not at the limit or any near about, but we should not drive at any limits on open roads anyway. For real race, on a real track, some has to try it, but on canyon roads I think it is a very good contender. I would say and excellent contender for me and my driving! Oh, and by the way, once I hit the nicer, out of the Bay Area highways, the ride got much better. I had no comfort complains through the whole trip...until got back to the neighborhood, but we will talk bout that later. So, I do not know what' the spring rate on this H&R O.E.rears, but in my book it is a very valid rear spring! Of course, we can not forget that the car has a Shine RSB too! Would be really nice of someone else tries this, and possibly someone who drives in a completely different way that me........

So, here we come to the final (and to me most important) part of this post. After reading carefully this page and trying to picture exactly what the problem is with those springs at high speed, I figured out that the shocks have to come out again, no matter what, and some fine adjustments had to be done as to try to synchronize the rear "frequency" with the front, or if not possible to synchronize them, at least to get very close and see how much this would help (if any) to resolve the issue........ The thing as I was getting really tired of taking out the rear shocks. I may go 10% stiff and still be wrong, and then have to get it out again and go 15% stiff and be wrong again and then maybe 20% and be wrong again....and all this would have wasted the whole day and still no good results, because who really know where the sweet spot is? So, I was thinking (and you guys correct me if I am wrong) that if I have to match the rear to the front, the it would be pretty much the same if I find a way to vary the front as to match it to the rear, no? And it was time anyway to put those Konis on the front too







So, here we go, the car now has Koni on full soft on the front and full soft on the rear (finally!) and I decided to start from the full soft and just see what happens ............ and it really happened, right there! Believe it or not, with everything else unchanged, just by installing the front Konis, somehow the front pitch (I guess) got noticeably closer to the one of the rear (maybe is not "closer" but "synchronized" somehow), so the result is that the car now behaves very differently on high speeds. It is very confusing if I try to explain it, but it really feels like somehow the spring rates all around (four corners) got softer all together. The car just takes the road's imperfections much better, so much better that I almost feel I do not want to touch anything anymore and just drive it as it is! The even more interesting part is, that after reading many posts about how Bilsteins would give more response in turn in and the car would feel flatter, etc...I am finding out that the Konis, even on full stiff, feel almost like Bilsteins when working fast with the steering wheel. I actually do not feel any difference in the turn in department, and mind you, have no tried anything else but full soft for the moment. It could be because they are still to new and tight, I do not know, but so far I feel no difference in turn-in feel and it is very surprising because the experience with he rears was different. Part of this could be also due to the fact that the front bushings and bearings were replaced this time with brand new, even if the old stuff looked good, but we decided that I am not going to touch this front anymore, so let replace the things and forget about them. So, next step (and this is easy one!) is to start playing little bit with the front rebound and see what gives and takes and eventually to fine-tune the whole thing or perhaps find different settings where the combo behaves in specific ways, so these known settings later could be used directly when going for a spirited drive with friends, etc. It was amazing how much the Bilsteins were telegraphing through the steering wheel, all these minivibrations when going over all sorts of small imperfections....and now it feels little bit like the steering wheel got disconnected from the road through some sort of system that transfers all the rotation feeling but not the road's imperfections. The front is like better than ever!
Oldman, this is specially for you as you are trying hard to identify possible VW springs to match, etc..... At the GTG last weekend (what a luck!) there was a guy with Jetta on the stiffest identified by you VR6 springs (as the color code matched your description) and look at the case, he was on Koni Yellow and with a rear sway bar too (N25). So, needless to say, I had a chat with him and he let me try his car on a big parking lot. So, now that I got some real life experience with VR6 springs on Jetta vs. Shine front on Jetta, both with Koni Yellow, both on full soft - I can tell you these two springs are very far from each other. The Shine front is simple outstanding compare to the VR6 spring! They simply can't be compared, really. I am shipping you the Shine rear tonight, please get the Shine front and with the Shine bar you already have, you are all set forever and ever. VR6 springs don't come even close. I guess you some time compare your car to Mike's car, but do not forget that he rides on 15" Yoko AVS "db" and I know those tires, they have very, very soft wall! I spent a day in the local "wheel works" to touch every tire they had in stock and see how different are the walls, and those Yoko are soft, really soft an thin walls. You on your side, ride on 17" wheel and even your tires are soft wall too, a 45 wall is much better than 60 wall. So, you may drive his car and then drive yours and think the VR6 spring is "close" enough, but is really far. You either get the Shine front and see what a beast your car is going to be on the 17", or put your wheels on Mike's car for a day and take it for a drive. I have 15" Yoko ES-100 too, on the stock rims, the 205-60-15 are just too tall walls for the Shine thing.......
I can't write longer than this, too tired, sorry







ciao


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

So, do I hear that this is it? You are now 100% happy with the setup? If that's the case then Congrats!!! 
I guess the problem was that the front & rear were not in-sync. It probably would have taken a lot of time to adjust the rears to have the same stiffness as front Bilstein... having both Koni all around was the asnwer.
So, how different the front felt, Bilstein vs. Koni? It seems you were happy with both handling/ride... The good thing is that the fronts can be adjusted externally, so you don't have to take them off again! 
I may start doing the same. First will change the rear buffer and see how does it do afterwards. If I am still unhappy about the ride, will probably go full Koni all-around (whenever I make some more money), it seems that it's not worth trying the rears only, since adjusting it perfectly to match front Bilstein is like impossible.
Great work http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

Dezljet has a set of 16s BBS and and a set of OEM 17s with OEM rubber. He of course likes the 17s but says they slow him down big time and he is more of a street fighter than a Canyon carver. 
Peter was that the 24V or is it a 30V? dunno bbbb/w (maybe silver can't really tell) spring or the more common bb(b)/ww spring? I'll call Dick and see if he will sell me just the fronts.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (oldmanTDI)*

Must take some of my words back.... after driving the car almost 100 miles last night, the front somehow got softer and softer when doing rapid changes in direction. In my previous post I said that the Konis on 0% stiff feel the same like the Bilsteins, but it is no longer true. However, turning the knob at 25% stiff makes things pretty equal again. I tried them on 50% stiff too, and it is very noticeable change in fast turn-in. At 50% it really feels like a massive front sway-bar was installed. Superior to what the Bilsteins offer. So, a day after the install, I think the numbers almost match what we have found for the rears..... the Koni matches the Bilstein behavior in turn-in in between 25% and 50% stiff for the rebound, but much closer to the 25%.....
Alex, I like it as per today. It could be the one for me. Of course, I would not stop looking for different rear springs, just to try and see what gives what. We do not know the spring rate of these, and beside, we do not know any of the popular springs rate to begin with. There are numbers circulating, but I would personally believe it when someone send a spring for testing to a proper shop and I have not read about anything like this lately. Ideally, I want a spring that does not lower the rear more than 0.5 inch, but this one did go to 1". But overall, I am happy with what I have, it is so far the best compromise I found on my car. It suits my handling requirement AND suits my comfort requirement. I guess we can always look to improve both by little bit more, but it is a thin line and have to be careful. I will continue experimenting with rebound thought. I will just maybe slow down as it takes too much time and effort.......


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Nice work!*

I spent some time reviewing this post. I admire your efforts "pyce", and the inputs from others (oldmanTDI, alexb75, Daemon42, and others) is great too. This is a wonderful example of what this "community" can be like.
So, thank you. You all rock! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, I like it as per today. It could be the one for me. Of course, I would not stop looking for different rear springs, just to try and see what gives what. We do not know the spring rate of these, and beside, we do not know any of the popular springs rate to begin with. There are numbers circulating, but I would personally believe it when someone send a spring for testing to a proper shop and I have not read about anything like this lately. Ideally, I want a spring that does not lower the rear more than 0.5 inch, but this one did go to 1". But overall, I am happy with what I have, it is so far the best compromise I found on my car. It suits my handling requirement AND suits my comfort requirement. I guess we can always look to improve both by little bit more, but it is a thin line and have to be careful. I will continue experimenting with rebound thought. I will just maybe slow down as it takes too much time and effort....... 

Awesome. So, even at 25-50% stiff, they were better riding than Bilstein? or close? 
Well, H&R for some reason doesn't publish their spring rates (they told me since they don't want others to copy it, BS to me), but Nuespeed and some other reputable companies do. Stock Jetta is 130, Nuespeed SofSport is 25% stiffer, and is 160, and H&R OE is supposed to be 10-15% stiffer, so the best guess is around 145. Now, I know this for a fact that SofSport doesn't lower more than 0.5", H&R as I posted seems to settle down too much. Although lowering the rear doesn't have the same negative effect as lowering the front, since Shine is higher I believe your car is rear-raked right now (isn't it)? If that's the case balancing the car can have a good impact on handling and also better off-the-line traction (more important for 1.8T guys). 


_Modified by alexb75 at 1:19 PM 1-20-2004_


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

I slack off on reading the forums for a little while and come back to this









_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_...
I like it as per today. It could be the one for me... 

Glad you got it how you like it


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ Believe it or not, with everything else unchanged, just by installing the front Konis, somehow the front pitch (I guess) got noticeably closer to the one of the rear (maybe is not "closer" but "synchronized" somehow), so the result is that the car now behaves very differently on high speeds. It is very confusing if I try to explain it, but it really feels like somehow the spring rates all around (four corners) got softer all together. The car just takes the road's imperfections much better, so much better that I almost feel I do not want to touch anything anymore and just drive it as it is! 
It was amazing how much the Bilsteins were telegraphing through the steering wheel, all these minivibrations when going over all sorts of small imperfections....and now it feels little bit like the steering wheel got disconnected from the road through some sort of system that transfers all the rotation feeling but not the road's imperfections. The front is like better than ever!
I have 15" Yoko ES-100 too, on the stock rims, the 205-60-15 are just too tall walls for the Shine thing.......
I can't write longer than this, too tired, sorry







ciao

Hello Peter,
Congrats on finding a setup that works for you! And sorry for being too detailed in my posts -- the engineer in me comes out a little much sometimes, and I'll try to be more clear in the future.







For what it's worth, your most recent experiences do make sense:
* Remember that very first email/ post I sent you, about how the Bilsteins by design are "quicker-acting" than the Konis? (i.e., the Bilsteins start damping almost as soon as the wheel moves, whilst Konis have to move farther before they begin damping.) That quicker action transmits a lot more vibration into the chassis, and it makes bumps "harder edged" -- that's why Koni has specced twin tubes for the Golf/Jetta, instead of the high-pressure monotubes they manufacture for other applications. So your softer ride with Konis makes sense.
* Regarding others' reports of better turn-in with Bilsteins, which you did not experience: the Bilstein's quick action *should* make the car more responsive if most of the slop (compliance) in the steering/ suspension system resides in the shocks, but if there's a lot of slop elsewhere, the quick shock action won't make a difference. In particular, your 15" wheel and tall tires probably set the limit to how crisply your car responds to steering inputs (once you have the Konis dialed up), so the Bilsteins' quick action was wasted on your car (i.e., it didn't help your handling, but it did ruin your ride). Someone with 17" wheels and harder-than-stock bushings might benefit more (handling wise) than you did with Bilsteins, though of course their ride would be just as bad or worse.
* Thanks for describing your driving technique(!). For the sort of driving you enjoy, turn-in is not that crucial (you're not "pitching" the car into corners), and your basic chassis setup should have a healthy amount of steady-state understeer -- so don't worry if your car theoretically has "too much understeer"!! (We can discuss this offline if you wish -- basically, a car that's neutral handling for track use (where you feed in a lot of power through quite a bit of the corner) will often spin like a top if simply it's steered into corners, without your balancing the car with the pedals. That's why an enjoyable street setup typically has a lot of understeer on the skidpad...)
* For novices reading along (and Daemon42, feel free to rebut: I have a professional disagreement with you here, but it's with the fullest respect for your views!), please pay a lot of attention to Pyce's setup! Until you've taken a race-driving course, raced, or autocrossed a fair bit (as Daemon42) has, you won't feel the "understeer" that a setup like Pyce's has, and you can have a lot of fun while being safer. Once you get a fair bit of track or autocross experience under your belt, you can dial the understeer out, but until then, don't worry about getting the most theoretically "neutral" car out there. (And for what it's worth, I took the Skip Barber 3-day course, got an SCCA license and raced a bit -- and my GTI probably has more understeer than Pyce's has, because I make mistakes when driving on the street...)
* Finally Peter, remember that first email, about the tires being an undamped spring? If your suspension suddenly feels "synchronized" upon installing slower-acting front shocks (and if you're running very high pressures in your tires), it really does sound like at least part of your problem was that your suspension was stiff enough (because of the fast-acting Bilsteins) that you were basically bouncing on the tires -- now that you have Konis with a bit of compliance with them, the tire sidewalls can flex on bumps without transmitting everything directly into the chassis. (Sorry about asking confusing questions about "hertz" and things, but this is what I was trying to get at -- if it felt like the front was bouncing really fast before, in ways completely unsynchronized with the rear at high speeds, and now the front is smoother and more "synchronized", it'll because your chassis is now bouncing around mostly on the springs, like it's designed to do.)
Along those lines, someday (if you're not totally sick of experimentation), you might want to borrow someone's 16" or 17" wheels and try them out again -- though hopefully at saner, closer-to-stock pressures. With the compliant Konis, you might well find that the bigger wheels/ shorter sidewalls are still comfortable, while handling precision goes up all around.
Regardless, congrats, and keep us posted as the shocks settle in!
- W


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Ceilidh)*

As for our professional disagreement, the problem is, I can tell you and others that my
car is perfectly safe to drive at or near the limits and you're not going to 
believe me until you've actually driven my car. Anyone finding themselves in
the Denver area is free to get in touch with me and drive my car though. That's a standing offer.
My suspension setup is not all that far different from pyces, although my summer tires and alignment 
are more aggressive. As I said before, while I have pretty neutral handling (for a FWD car) my 
car is not twitchy or unpredictable. I even lift off the throttle midcorner on *purpose*to get 
the front end to tuck in a little, without fear that the rear end is going to fly away on me. 
I drive fast on my summer tires, and my much less grippy snow tires alike. The car handles a bit differently 
between the two, but is not a razor edged race car, even if I like to take it to the track a few times a year. 
I think the only other place we (and a lot of other people) disagree is on the effects
of lower rate rear springs. Pyce has been told by many that low rate springs will make for ridiculously 
bad handling. That it's impossible to have "neutral" handling at the limits, with low rate rear springs.
Well, I'll let the cat out of the bag. While the semi-official Mk3 GTI-VR6
Shine "Lite" suspension is 200lb Mk3 2.0 fronts, and Corrado SLC rears (rates unknown, but higher than 
stock GTI-VR6 rears), I actually have run the stock rear springs for tens of thousands
of miles, on the street, at the Auto-X and on the track.
The setup works quite well, and is still comfortable. And so far I've never met another dub I couldn't
smoke on a twisty road without even going near 10/10ths, unless it were myself driving a Full Shine 
equipped car (which I have driven on multiple cars and pushed beyond the limits of adhesion. I know 
how fast it can be, but having driven it 1200 miles cross country, I also know the ride wears a bit
thin on poorly maintained straight roads.) 
And lest someone accuse me of claiming that I have an ultimate performance setup I'll say that
there's certainly a performance price to be paid for lower rate springs, but in my opinion it's way more 
important at the front of the car and the big Shine rear bar plays a far far greater role at the rear end of our very nose 
heavy cars than the rear springs. If we had a 50/50 weight dist instead of 65/35, then yes the rear spring 
rates and and various toe/camber changes under compression would be much more important. We don't, it isn't. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Daemon42)*

Just a quick reply, I do not know how it happened (the misunderstanding) but I drive my car on 205-55-16 tires on 16x7 wheels. I do have 15" in the garage too, but they have been not in use for quiet some time, and precisely, because of your suggestions: I felt that Shine on 15" tires (tall wall) is way too stiff for that tire, and the tire was "ballooning" way too much, without the suspension even start working properly. I wanted to keep the masses down and the Stock Avus 15" was good contender (it is really light wheel for what it is) but the stiffest side wall tire I found was the yoko ES-100 and I got it and it was still a no-no. Then (funny, my moves then coincide with your advises now) I got a set of 225-45-17 on 17x7 wheel and actually, even as per today, I think it is the greatest combo with full Shine Kit! The only matter was that (you guessed it!) the ride quality was not really what I want. Mind you, we did some out of state trips and when, let's say, going to Nevada, majority of the roads are really nice there, so the Shine + 17" was really fantastic! It felt actually, that the suspension (springs) finally started to work and the steering feel, too, was brilliant. I really loved that setup, but had to sell it, as I loved more the Shine Kit. For short period of time I had even 18" (yeah, experimenting all the way







) but that was big mistake, so would not even mention more. The final decision came at the end and so a set of pretty light 16" came and 205 rubber was mounted on them. It is not ideal, but again, as with everything else, is the best compromise for me. I even got another set of 16" and on that one have S-03, because I do listen when (some) people talk and when they suggest tires are very important, then I decided to try some good tires too. Turned out that the Shine Kit and Potenzas S-03 are a marriage made in heaven. The only problem here was (let's see how many would laugh) that the car was so freaking fast and stable in curves, so I started to drive in a very unsafe way! Every curve was a challenge, every off-ramp was "Let's see how fast I can go through!" and boy, it was fast enough for me to get scared. This combo on my car did miracles. So, when you drive it at normal speeds, the drive becomes so boring and so easy to control, there was no fun! You have to push it as to have fun, but by then you are way out off the limits on the road and that was not good...... so, for this reason they are in the garage now. Just put them from time to time when feel like going for more fun. They wear too fast too, I went down to LA twice and they are half gone. Touring tires for me, that is it - call me crazy if you wish


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Daemon42)*

So Ian, what exacty of your setup then? I couldn't find it in these posts?
EDIT- Sorry I think I cannot read properly. So, you have 200lb Mk3 2.0 fronts, and Corrado SLC rears and Shine RSB, right?


_Modified by alexb75 at 7:25 PM 1-20-2004_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_So Ian, what exacty of your setup then? I couldn't find it in these posts?

Mk3 2.0 Shine 200lb front springs (note.. Mk3 GTI-VR6 is 10% lighter than Mk4 so it's not unreasonable
for the springs to be 12.5% lower rate than Mk4 Full Shine rates)
OEM GTI-VR6 rear springs of unknown rate (the well proven Mk3 Shine "Lite" setup is the same in every 
other way but uses stock Corrado SLC rear springs, and I recommend it over my own setup)
Bilstein dampers all around
Shine rear bar
-1.8 degrees camber and 1/16" toe out
sticky tires
ian


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_As for our professional disagreement, the problem is, I can tell you and others that my
car is perfectly safe to drive at or near the limits and you're not going to 
believe me until you've actually driven my car. I even lift off the throttle midcorner on *purpose*to get 
the front end to tuck in a little, without fear that the rear end is going to fly away on me. 
I think the only other place we (and a lot of other people) disagree is on the effects
of lower rate rear springs. Pyce has been told by many that low rate springs will make for ridiculously 
bad handling. That it's impossible to have "neutral" handling at the limits, with low rate rear springs.
Well, I'll let the cat out of the bag. While the semi-official Mk3 GTI-VR6
Shine "Lite" suspension is 200lb Mk3 2.0 fronts, and Corrado SLC rears (rates unknown, but higher than 
stock GTI-VR6 rears), I actually have run the stock rear springs for tens of thousands
of miles, on the street.
ian


Hello Ian,
#1) So you can lift mid-corner in a drift and the tail just steps out without spinning? Sounds like a well-sorted, sweet street suspension, with a nice bit of stabilizing steady-state understeer. Congratulations on achieving exactly the sort of suspension that we should all be aiming for! If this is how your Mk III "Shine Lite" behaves, we have no "professional disagreement" at all -- from your sway bar posts, I had the impression your setup was more track-oriented, but I stand corrected now.
#2) I think you're confusing me with somebody else. I've been saying all along that stiffening the front more than the rear (1) need not lead to massive understeer; (2) gives a nice feel on turn-in and corner entry -- which is what most people really want when they think they want "less understeer"; and (3) doesn't screw up the ride via pitch (because the stiffened ride rates and typically increased damping makes pitch tuning relatively unimportant). So we've always been in full agreement here!
For any newbies reading along who might have been confused by some of these interchanges: the question has to do with how track-oriented do you want your suspension to be. A real race car (one optimized for the track, not a good street suspension like Daemon42's that can be taken on the track for the occasional workout) requires a particular throttle/brake/steer technique; mess up that technique, and you're in big trouble. Race cars truly are pretty "neutral" in their handling -- and you generally *don't* want that neutrality for the street. For a street car, a good suspension is one that has a nice, incisive turn-in and corner entry, followed by enough stabilizing understeer that you can do things like back off the throttle mid-corner without instantly spinning into the weeds; in addition, the suspension should also hold the car steady at speed (no heaving or bouncing) while keeping the tires pressed to the pavement, and it should have extremely progressive break-away characteristics. Ian (Daemon42) seems to have achieved that with his A3; Shine has achieved it on the A4 platform at the expense (apparently) of an overly firm ride on really bad roads, and Pyce (and perhaps Alexb75) are zeroing in on an A4 setup that preserves some of the Shine qualities while being more comfortable on rough roads. (And I for one am really psyched by what they're accomplishing!)

By the way, if any of you are ever actually reading through my (Ceilidh's) long posts, you should apply a correction factor: my exchanges with Daemon42 and Pyce are making it clear to me that what I call "understeer" and "neutral" are not what everyone else on this thread is calling such. My background is with vintage racing RWD sports cars, where neutral is very neutral and not at all something you want on the street. On this forum, however (maybe it's a FWD thing), what people call "neutral" seems to be what people in my neck of the woods call "mild-to-moderate understeer"; whereas "understeer" on this forum is probably my "heavy, plow-on understeer". So if you read my posts on handling theory, and see me refer to "stabilizing understeer", well, that "stabilizing understeer" seems to be what everyone else is calling "neutral", etc. Make that correction, and the posts might fit in better with what everyone else is saying.
Peter (Pyce) -- it's been a pleasure participating in this thread with you (and many thanks to Oldman, Ian, Alexb75, GTItraveler, f1forkvr6, and others too!). I think I've gone as far (probably way too far) as I can with handling theory posts, so I'm going to bow out for a while. If you ever have any future questions, Peter, just send me an email (or stop by Harvard if you're ever in Boston -- we'll go driving!) -- (or if anyone else has a query, just post something to "Ceilidh" on this or whatever future thread the crew winds up on). But good luck and have fun with all the future experiments on your cars, and again, it's been an absolute pleasure reading all the helpful and informative posts you and the rest of the community have been sending to this thread. All the best, and take care!
- W


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Ceilidh)*

Holy moly this is what I come to the Vortex for (well the tech forums at least) - ceilidh thanks for adding clarifying comments to your posts; I got all lost in the more technical / experimental aspects of the discussion. I'm currently on full Shine for a Mk4 and will wait to see what pyce and the others come up w/ ...I'm in the south bay (south of pyce) so the roads here are much smoother than parts of SF ... consequently I don't have quite the same complaints about ride harshness as pyce does.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Mencius01)*

Check out this link, an interesting comparison of mono-tube vs. Twin-tube at different speeds. Go to Mono Tube Vs. Twin Tube comparison section.
http://www.whiteline.com.au/de...1.htm


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*

Mencius, I am now working around 237, so it is quiet close to you.....we have to meet one of these days and compare rides, etc. Let's take this in IM








Alex, great link! I finally got time to read the whole page last night and I really hope people would spend the time to go through it as it says a lot when it comes to shocks! Keep that link handy and post it to everyone who comes with a question "Shall I get Koni or Bilsteins?" It is important that newer members have the opportunity to make an educated choice.
Meanwhile, I have changed the rebound few times and went back to stock springs again. The H&R O.E. are for sale at this point. I ended up with one full inch drop on the rear and that is not what I want. I like them overall and they met almost every requirement, except the lowering, which I want to avoid. I also do not want to involve any kid of spacers as to gain ride height........
Ian, I would like to thank you for "letting the cat out of the bag"! I (and guess everyone else here) always thought you are on Corrado rears. I am very pleased to hear about your results with the stock rears, because now that YOU said it, a lot of people will take it more seriously and will eventually believe that the Stock rears are not bad at all, of course, with the massive rear bar! I find the stock spring much "easier" to work on with the rebound adjustability..... I mean, I can go up and down within 0% - 50% and still have very decent comfort. The other three springs are very "rebound sensitive". Of course, someone would say, it is because the stock is the softest..... Yes, but softer spring with more rebound gives (me only!) better feeling than slightly stronger spring with softer rebound. the car feels "quicker" into turns with softer rear spring plus more rebound. It may be just a "feel" but boy it helps me feel I am more in control and actually helps me go into curves faster. Mind you, it may be just a feel, but honestly, it mades me feel the car somehow better and therefore I feel more confident at higher corner speeds. Maybe if pushed even harder things will dramatically change, but at the average speeds I go, my feeling is that softer rear spring (but could be "taller" rear springs too!) plus more rebound on the rear gives me more confidence.....


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

I have actually mentioned that I was on stock rears before, but when people ask what
the Shine "Lite" suspension, is I tell them the setup that Uwe Ross developed
because it's well proven. I have driven a GTI-VR6 with the original Shine "Lite" setup
on Corrado rears as used used by many people on the GTI-VR6
mailing list, and it is generally considered to be optimal in terms of 
balance of performance and comfort. I stuck with the stock GTI-VR6 rears
more out of laziness than anything else. It was like "Now that I've
got everything else installed, I'll get those Corrado rears in there as soon as I 
need the added edge in handling", and then just never needed them. I haven't touched 
my suspension in.. I dunno, at least 40 thousand miles. Frankly I was 
surprised because it works just fine, and it's why I've continued to say that one can decrease
the rear spring rates without problems. But I also know that I'm giving something up 
in terms of performance. It's just not something I've ever needed to still run faster than anyone 
else I know on a twisty road and it's not half bad at the Auto-X either. A Full Shine suspension 
will blow my setup away and I say that from personal experience having 
put several thousand hard miles on the Full Shine. The only problem I had
was that at speeds less than 100mph on long straight bumpy roads (ala.. Highway 50 
across Nevada) it just kinda wore me out. I cover a lot of roads like that 
every year so I had to take a step down.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, great link! I finally got time to read the whole page last night and I really hope people would spend the time to go through it as it says a lot when it comes to shocks! Keep that link handy and post it to everyone who comes with a question "Shall I get Koni or Bilsteins?" It is important that newer members have the opportunity to make an educated choice.


I am myself now in that position








I still take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. Those guys only sell twin-tube shocks so makes me wonder about their test "just a little". The funny thing is that I have been in discussion with Neuspeed and eventhough I wanna buy Koni from them ($$ for them) they told me that I won't get that much improvement at all. The only way to find out is to try someone's car with Koni and see how does it ride. Funny enough, I did that before I bought my suspension and the guy's car with Bilstein was MUCH more comfortable for some reason


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*

Alex, the Koni WILL improve your ride quality, there is no doubt about it as this is the reason all this topic started! Now, what may happen (and eventually will happen in your case) is that the improvement is not going to be enough for you! It is similar thing when you play with tire pressure - you get from 38 to 32 and the ride quality improves, but it may not be enough if you run hard spring or if your roads are real bad. Regardless of this, I think you should FIRST OF ALL find out how much your buffers affect your ride! Really, Alex, just get serious on this and find out how much your buffers are affecting the ride quality. It will be such a waste of money for you to change shocks and only then find out there is not difference because you are riding on you buffers regardless of which shocks they are compressing onto. If your rear is more than 1" lower than stock and you have the "B" buffers like me - you are right on them, unless you all have somehow different car than mine. Solve this first! Cheap and fast way to get A LOT of comfort! Very simple, take out the rear shock, remove the dust cover, put back everything together WITH the buffer and do not even need to tighten the bolts, just place it back and see where it is at. Also keep in mind that seating in the car changes some. They may not touch with empty car and be slightly compressed with you inside. Do this FIRST, please!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

take off shock, leave dust cover on, compress shock so it hits damper, mark the shock body with light masking tape, install on the car. This way you can see how much clerance you have and you don't need to take things apart to put the dust cover back.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman, the problem is he has Bilsteins Sport, high pressure! It is so high, he may not feel when the buffer actually touches, but only an inch later when it gets really hard


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (pyce)*

Thanks Pyce. I am also in the same path as you were already. I will for sure do the buffer sometime soon. The problem is that these days I am very tight on money as well as time (started graduate school). My only time is spent here discussing things, since I am at my desk all day long. The reason for all the research is that I cannot afford experimentation like u did. When I wanted to buy my setup, I took a ride in a buddy's car with the same setup, his car was fine!







It was firm but in no way like mine is right now?! So, I am a little puzzled, will do the buffer first, and then will see how does it do... could be that it's enough. If not, will try different shocks when I get enough money. 
Oh, one question. My installer did NOT install the front stock bumpstops with the Bilstein strut, he said they don't need them since Bilstien has its own bumpstop. Is that right? Could that be one of my problems (no bumptops up front)?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Oh, one question. My installer did NOT install the front stock bumpstops with the Bilstein strut, he said they don't need them since Bilstien has its own bumpstop. Is that right? Could that be one of my problems (no bumptops up front)?

IIRC that's correct - Bilstein uses internal bumpstops. I doubt the lack of an external bumpstop, or Bilstein's internal bumpstop up front is the root cause of any ride quality issues you're experiencing. I'd be interested to hear if removing the rear bumpstops does it for you. Perhaps that's why the Shine RSS on my B4 has been relatively comfortable for me -- no rear bumpstops (they use a coil-over sleeve to set the appropriate ride height on their B4 kit ... (not enough room for a bumpstop using a 2.5" spring).
*Edit: B4 comments.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 7:17 AM 1-27-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (f1forkvr6)*

Today, for the first time I got into a car that had great suspension, absolutely flat, awsome handling and very nice ride. It was an Acura Type-R








I just realized how a car should handle without losing ride comfort, my next car will have double-wishbone suspension for sure. The ride was awsome over small bumps and road irregularities, you couldn't feel most of them, but when I hit a really big bump, I felt it big time! That's the way it should be, compliant over small bumps and tough on bigger ones since you can avoid hitting those big ones. 
The car was pretty low, very flat in cornering and no body roll what so ever, had STOCK strut bar, big front swaybar, rear swaybar, rear chassis bar (in the trunk)... all tuned by Mugen Honda. Every bits and piece that could have added weight was removed from the car (not much features included). I almost converted







and traded in my car... but couldn't live with that much noise in the car (most sound barriers were removed to reduce weight). If I had money I'd be buying that for track days only







. That's they way GTI should have been made, hopefully MK5 is like that! 
Oh, BTW, don't flame me because I praised some non-VW/Audi car


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*

Alex - the Mk5 will have the improvements you wish for.


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Today, for the first time I got into a car that had great suspension, absolutely flat, awsome handling and very nice ride. It was an Acura Type-R








I just realized how a car should handle without losing ride comfort, my next car will have double-wishbone suspension for sure 


Want some irony? Honda/Acura has strarted switching some of their cars from double A-arms to Macpherson struts in order to save some money. The latest Civic and the Acura RSX have both gone to Mac struts while their predecesors had twin A-arms. 
The Realtime Acura team in the Speed Vision World Challenge had one hell of a time figuring out how to get their RSX with Mac strut based car to handle the way their old A-arm cars did.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Stealth Car)*

I driven a few Rs, built my own with better than R spec stuff. As far as I know I'm the first guy in NA with, GS-R with LSD, R spec cams, Toda cams, spoon 4 to 1 header (built two of my own before that)... suspension of course. Too bad Acura had to go back to struts as the RSX is based on the Civic which went back to front struts. A major downer. One of the reasons I did not get a RSX BTW. RSX don't seem to be as tight as a setup GS-R or Type R or even a CRX.
Not that front struts are that bad... IMO the rear trailing arms needs to go. Hence the MK5 will fix that. Volvo, Focus, you name it have A arms in the rear now. Volvo complete with rear aluminum subframe for isolation, smooth quite and still performs well. The new M3, Focus and small Volvo will be all the same platform so I would assume the rear will all be setup the same, don't know if this small platform will have a rear subframe or just bolt the arms to the chassis.
But what do I know, IMO my Z28 had best road manners of any car that I owned.











_Modified by oldmanTDI at 6:57 PM 1-30-2004_


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (oldmanTDI)*

The new Mazda 3 uses the same platform as the upcoming Volvo and the new European Focus.


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Stealth Car)*

spanking cars too, the V40 is going to come out with 238 HP 2.4 liter all that in a Focus platform, I'm sure SVT will have a wild ride too. M3 may come with the turbo 178 HP, same tight suspension the M3 is know for. All three should be dominant eco boxes. Don't know how the MK5 is going to stack up. 
I hope to see at least the 136? HP TDI for the Passat and a 6 speed in the MK5, if not a 150 to 175 HP 4 valve PD. But lets get real, the MK5 is growing fat too, VW needs to bring a Mini type car, a Corrado, to get the bling crowd in. Only so much you can do for a 3000 lbs FWD. IMO


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (oldmanTDI)*

Don't know whether it was fact or rumour, but somewhere I saw that VW was planning to bring the next generation Polo to North America. I wouldn't expect to see them bring the Lupo hear. Just to small for this market.
Just imagine a 1.8T Polo...


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Konis go in the front too ...... (Stealth Car)*

You guys know me, I don't like the 1.8T, it is a dead end motor, no VTEC and too much and too close valves don't allow for a big cam. 
I'd like to see the Polo with the new 2.0 direct inject gasser, turbo to about 240 HP, on the TDI which also comes in Polo the new 4v, PD with 175 HP
Since tha Passat and the MK5 will be the same platform, VW really only has one car platform, it is really to FAT and too long for a performance box, Really I like the Polo idea as MPG would go up, cost would go down and IMO performance would go up with the same engine. 
Is the new Polo A-Arm in the rear? I really like the sport SEAT too. I've seen several in Austin and one in Houston. Must come up from Mexico?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*...and the bar went south....*

Well, in an attempt to finally try to find little bit more about the limits of the "Frankenstein" suspension, I went out in the mountains today and while the world was watching the game, there was no one on the roads, so it was perfect to give it (finally) a little but more push and find out who is right - those who say this will work great or those who say this will not work at all ......... So, I decided to push really hard this time and try to go where my car had never been before.......and the result is, ladies and gentlemen, my Shine bar broke! LOL!







It was one hour of pure fun and great time thought. I think Ian is right, the car with stock rears feels good. I would not use the word neutral, but would like to say that the car can be made to understeer and oversteer at the same time. It really depends how do you go into the curve and what you do from the entrance to the middle. Lift throttle makes it "feel" that the rear is going out, but it is just a feel, as the rear stays there. Braking thought makes it slide, the rear. It can be made to even slide on all four wheels if the entrance is done in certain way. The conclusion is that I am no longer afraid from this setup as it actually handles great. The problem was more in my head, all those voices saying "you will now crash as the springs are mismatched"







The secret is to forget (for one hour) what suspension you have and just drive the hack out of it till start feeling the car like part of your pants......or till your rear bar brakes, LOL!
Anyway, I think we should take Dick seriously and NOT use his bar without his rear springs (even if he says the problem comes from using front soft springs, but it does not matter now). I just think I was lucky today as the bar broke 5 seconds after I decided to slow down and pull to a shop for a drink! So, I could not experience what it is to break it while on three wheels







The sound is SCARY thought! In a way is a good thing as I wanted to go slowly back to stock and try to see more of what gives what from the upgrades, so this is a perfect occasion to learn to drive without an anti-roll bar........ Talk more tomorrow.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

It broke








I have been told that it had borken even on fully shined cars, and Dick never recommended it with softer springs, I guess he was right. So, what r u gonna do now? Get Neuspeed 25 or 28?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Just a note..... I do not intend to blaim anyone but myself for this, so, I hope this is not going ot turn into sway bars war, etc.... I did NOT follow the manufacturer's suggestion, so I was on my own and it happened! I still belive it is great product!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

That's bizarre. 
What were you doing at the moment it actually broke, if not 3 wheeling? 
ian


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I have been told that it had borken even on fully shined cars ...

Out of simple curiosity, how and under what circumstances did the Shine bar break on a vehicle using the full RSS? Who did it happen to - perhaps we can ping that person for details. It might be helpful for those of us running this bar to know what to situations avoid.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

Ian, I was turning into a parking lot, a 90 degree turn on an uneven surface. Uneven means there is small dislevel between the road and parking (parking being higher) besically like an ordinary driveway, which if taken under angle and relatively fast, always lifts the rear right wheel (when turn right). I am not sure if it broke right there, maybe earlier, but right there did the first sound!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Ah.. so it was on three wheels.
Yes, that's about the most stressful time for the bar, no matter what suspension you have. No matter how hard or soft the front is, the bar will have to deal with 100% weight transfer entering a driveway at an angle like that. My rear inside lifts every time, which is why it still surprises me that it broke. When you get it off, we'd love to see some photos. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

I think it broke slowly with time and last night was just the final hit that made the boom! The reason I think this way is because I look at it immediately and big part of the crack is very rusty and we know that it can't get rusty in a minute, not this much and this deep. I am pretty positive it was first a crack for who knows how long and it was working slowly it's way, but yes, I will take pictures later and post them. Not today thought, too busy. What a way to start the week, ha! This morning pouring water from the sky, and a car loses control on the highway and goes (sliding) from lane 4 to line 1, hits the cement wall and rebounces back towards line 4 again. At this point we are right on it's the path (where he is going to go) in lane 2 and 3 and for a miracle he slides in front of me and I miss him/her for inches, but the truck in the next line comes right in time and BAM, hit that car badly........ I was lucky, some others were not today.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Out of simple curiosity, how and under what circumstances did the Shine bar break on a vehicle using the full RSS? Who did it happen to - perhaps we can ping that person for details. It might be helpful for those of us running this bar to know what to situations avoid.

I tried to find it via search but couldn't, I kind of don't like the new method of searching it either doesn't return anything or returns a lot of crap.
It was a while back when someone posted, I think Dick was gonna take care of it or something. As far as I remember it happened while cornering hard on bumpy road or something.


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

The new search is a lot better than it was. 
The only post I saw with Dick talking about a broken bar was
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...55734
and it wasn't clear whether it was used on a full SRS or not. 
ian


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

That's the only mention of a possible broken Shine bar I've seen as well (prior to Pyce's) misadventure -- that's why I asked.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_The new search is a lot better than it was. 
The only post I saw with Dick talking about a broken bar was
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...55734
and it wasn't clear whether it was used on a full SRS or not. 
ian

That's one of them, but another thread referred to those pics and claimed the 2nd bar (Shine bar) was on a fully-shined setup. Anyways, it seems that it's not clear if that one was on Shine or not, but even Dick mentioned that his bars do break even on fully-shined cars... I guess all other products from all other manufacturers fail as well. 
On that thread he was putting the blame mostly on lowered cars and roll-center, however pyce is at stock height and not sure if roll-center has anything to do with it. I was just not very comfortable with RSB with no play!


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
On that thread he was putting the blame mostly on lowered cars and roll-center, however pyce is at stock height and not sure if roll-center has anything to do with it. I was just not very comfortable with RSB with no play! 

Play is not desireable in *any* part of the suspension, ever. Other sway bars
have bushings only because they *must*, because otherwise they'd bind up
and be unable to twist properly. The Shine bar doesn't share this problem.
Now Dick and I disagree on some aspects of why a rear bar would break, but what he's saying
is consistent with itself. If you lower the car, the roll center lowers faster than the CG.
The distance between roll center and CG *is* the moment arm that lateral forces act upon
to roll the car over, thus a lowered car has a greater tendency to roll than non-lowered.
If the front of the car is rolling, so is the rear, and if you've got a big rear bar, it puts more load on
the bar during moderate cornering loads. Where we disagree, is that during hard
cornering, the rear inside tire will lift, regardless of whether it's full Shine or not. If 
the rear inside tire has lifted, then 100% weight transfer has occured and the rear
bar is experiencing as much load as it ever will. I contend that a full Shine setup
with the rear inside tire in the air, experiences the same load on the bar as one with
softer front springs (or lowered, although I'm not going to argue in favor of lowering.. ever). 
Dick disagrees with the latter assement, but hasn't really offered a good reason why.
Personally, I think Pyce's case is a fluke (part of the < 1% failure rate), and he could put another bar 
on there and run for 100k miles without further problems. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

In the interest of finding out the real story here, I must say that most probably I have some sort of "strange" rear geometry, that could actually put more stress on the bar. Probably I do not even know what I am saying, but what makes me think this way is the fact that before the Shine Bar I had Neuspeed 28 bar and I had some issues with that bar too. We could not make the bushings stay placed where they suppose to stay, on both ends of the central straight part of the bar! Basically, no matter how tight we made the holders, the bushings were moving to the central part of the bar, seating next to each other all the time. Then we put some metal fasteners on both sides of each bushing and the moving stopped, but the bushings were badly "cut" from pressing on the metal sidewise and I had to replace them. So, probably my case is very isolated and it is not good for common failure analysis, as something else is not right down there.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

What I mean by play is that I don't really like my inside tire to be up in the air. Ian, can u explain to me why an inside tire in the air is a good thing?
I watch German and UK Touring car championships and have never seen their inside tires up in the air. Neither have I seen other race cars do that. I've only seen it on Auto-x events when people go crazy with stiffening the rear. I don't see that when I track with Porschses, Ferraris, Audi RS4s, Subaru WRX STis, Supras, and virtually all other properly engineered sports cars. 
So, why the heck in the world an inside tire in the air while cornering on a flat surface is a good thing?!


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
Where we disagree, is that during hard
cornering, the rear inside tire will lift, regardless of whether it's full Shine or not. If 
the rear inside tire has lifted, then 100% weight transfer has occured and the rear
bar is experiencing as much load as it ever will. 

I haven't read the last 10 pages but I thought I'd jump in and ask a question to try to understand this better.
When the car is in a turn and begins to roll and picks the inner rear wheel off the ground, the forces on the rear bar come from the torque in the torsion beam because the outer wheel is being compressed by the wieght transfer and the inner wheel is being pushed down by the inner spring.
If the springs are of a lower rate, the weight transfer would be greater because of increased body roll, but the inner spring would not push as hard on the inner side of the rear bar. I'm not sure if this results in more or less torsional defletion in the rear bar. It seems that it would result in more, thus making the bar more prone to break with softer springs.
Stiffer front springs would reduce weight transfer and maybe reduce the torque on rear bar, this may be why Dick claims that the front spring rates contribute to the stresses on the rear bar, regardless of whether the inner tire is off the ground. Overall the tendency of the rear bar to break is directly related to how much it deflects under hard cornering and the elasticity and shear strength of the material.
I may have just pulled all that out of my a$$, so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I think it broke slowly with time and last night was just the final hit that made the boom! The reason I think this way is because I look at it immediately and big part of the crack is very rusty and we know that it can't get rusty in a minute, not this much and this deep. I am pretty positive it was first a crack for who knows how long and it was working slowly it's way, but yes, I will take pictures later and post them. Not today thought, too busy. What a way to start the week, ha! This morning pouring water from the sky, and a car loses control on the highway and goes (sliding) from lane 4 to line 1, hits the cement wall and rebounces back towards line 4 again. At this point we are right on it's the path (where he is going to go) in lane 2 and 3 and for a miracle he slides in front of me and I miss him/her for inches, but the truck in the next line comes right in time and BAM, hit that car badly........ I was lucky, some others were not today.









Hi Pyce,
Glad you're safe and sound after what seems to have been a very eventful 24 hours(!).
For what it's worth, the symptoms you describe are essentially textbook for what's called a "fatigue failure", where an initially microscopic crack grows over a considerable period of time (the rust is a major tipoff, but often you'll see concentric "ring" shapes on the failure surface, where the cracking initiated); eventually the crack gets big enough for the whole thing to go "bang!" (which leaves a rougher, "crystalline" surface on the failed part). The crack usually starts at some sort of corner or section change (someplace where there's an angle, an edge, or an abrupt thickening or thinning), and it grows when you have a lot of load reversals (as in from twisting the bar first one way, and then another). If you do take some good pictures (especially ones that clearly show the failure surface), you might want to send them to Dick Shine -- not to ask for money back (given the non-warranty usage), but because descriptions of these failures can be really useful to manufacturers who continually work to improve their products.
I think I'll stay out of the can-soft-rear-springs-cause-the-failure debate(!), but again for what it's worth, usually when we got a fatigue failure in my old place of work, it was because an errant file mark, machining groove, scratch, casting flash, etc wound up at just the wrong place; especially when you couple that bad luck with cyclic overloading (which, as everybody concurs, can happen here with soft and/or lowered front springs, which you haven't done...), fatigue cracks can start -- but you don't always need the overloading if the surface scratch/ groove/ whatever is in just the wrong place. Bottom line, as Ian has pointed out, it's possible that a different specimen of the same bar might not have caused you trouble, and you might just have been unlucky.
Looking forward to hearing how Shine fronts work with stock rears and no bar!
- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
especially when you couple that bad luck with cyclic overloading (which, as everybody concurs, can happen here with soft and/or lowered front springs, which you haven't done...), fatigue cracks can start ...
- W

I'm sorry, everyone! I just read farther down more carefully, and I see that people do NOT concur that soft front springs can increase loading on the rear bar. My apologies for putting words in people's mouths, and please forget what I said about concurrence (once again, I'm staying out of this one!). The main thing, Peter, is that it sounds like you had a fatigue failure, and whilst such failures can stem from overloading, they can also arise from fairly subtle imperfections that can hit even very good manufacturers. Anyway, all the best!
- W


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

The notion of a fatigue failure appears consistent. The scenario I would predict is that stress in the bar will concentrate around the bolt bosses where the bosses are welded to the bar. Here too, the wall of the bar is made thin to accommodate the bosses. I would be willing to bet that, with skilled fabrication, none of the OEM U-channels (the "axel") will ever fail due to the bolt ripping through the metal. In fact, the configuration of the bolt as perpendicular through the plane of the U-channel metal is ideal for the given torque loading. The Shine bar's boss through the round bar design (for the given bar and boss sizes) is actually a poor way to torque load the bar. In this configuration, the welds become stressed members in an attempt to compensate for the poor loading geometry and thinning of the bar wall.
The combination of a geometric notch and an embrittled weld HAZ is a typical location for a fatigue crack to initiate. The geometric notch could be at the weld toe (an external feature) or at the weld root (an internal feature). With the rust, you will probably not see the "beach" marks, but you should see a relatively smooth and featureless surface. The presence of the "chrystalline" morphology may or may not be evident as the final failure can have a ductile component also. 
Of real interest will be to see if the initiation point can be determined. Pictures will not really be useful if you do not have macro lens capability with your camera. The macro allows for taking in-focus close-ups. Part of my job involves failure forensics of metallic materials. If it interest you to send me the fractured parts, I could give an assessment, and return the parts to you. Forum member GWillie has access to an SEM, and if analyzed with this instrument, it should be easy to determine origin and cause. 
If I were to presume to propose a design change for the (round section) bar, it would be a larger diameter with wall thickness commensurate to obtain the same torque properties. This would, with the bolt bosses installed, permit a better distribution of the reaction stress into the bar wall from twisting. But with the larger diameter round bar, there will be interference with the OEM bar and rubber bushing. Perhaps a square section bar would work, with the bosses off-set from the bar centerline to permit mounting into the channel. Yeah, I think a square section bar could be the thing; it would remove the weld as part of the stressed section, and the bar wall thickness will not be thinned by the insertion of the bosses. A square section may not be as "efficient" in torque to weight respects, but that would be splitting hairs.
And just so people are clear, "spring" steel is not essential for this application. Any steel (mild, low to medium carbon, low alloy) has the same modulus of elasticity (ie the same deflection under load). Higher yield stress material (ie. spring steel) simply saves weight and bulk. So, "structural" grade steel shapes will work as needed. The trick would be to find a standard size that reasonably meets the design torque requirements.


_Modified by NewbieBaby at 4:27 AM 2-3-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (NewbieBaby)*

NB, thanks for the offer, it will be eye opening for many of us if you could do the analysis! Please, IM me an address and the bar will be shipped to you. 
I was thinking to take pictures, but it will be a joke in front of what you and Geoff could do, so I will just pass this time







But have to confirm you are right, the bar broke right where the boss is! And if my eye sight is not so bad, I kind of see a small, just starting, crack on the other inner side, where the other inner boss is located. When I say inner, I mean boss #2 and #3 of the four....


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

pyce:
I mentioned Gwillie [sp] because of his activity in the forums (TDIClub, NQR, and here). I did not imply to volunteer his services and cannot speak for him, and if he can be interested to participate in the analysis project, someone would have to contact him.
Myself, it would be interesting to see your fractured material. Suggested treatment would be to not attempt to aggressively clean up the fracture surfaces, unless you want to because it’s your bar, and such. To conserve weight, if possible, cut off excess bar material from the broken section, unless you need these intact for the Shine warranty. However you send it, I will assume packing and costs to send it back to you or whatever address is appropriate. 
Don’t let me discourage you from taking pictures, I only meant to suggest that images sufficient to make a confident assessment of origin an cause would not be possible without focused close-ups. Also, with a strong magnifying glass, look at the other bar/boss joints to see if any concurrent cracking was going on.



_Modified by NewbieBaby at 1:24 PM 2-3-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (NewbieBaby)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NewbieBaby* »_The notion of a fatigue failure appears consistent. The scenario I would predict is that stress in the bar will concentrate around the bolt bosses where the bosses are welded to the bar. Here too, the wall of the bar is made thin to accommodate the bosses............."structural" grade steel shapes will work as needed. The trick would be to find a standard size that reasonably meets the design torque requirements.

_Modified by NewbieBaby at 4:27 AM 2-3-2004_

NB,
Just wanted to say "wonderful post!". Are you an ME? What industry? Regardless, really enjoyed reading your post -- looking forward to hearing more!
- W
P.S. -- I've never actually seen a Shine/O/etc. bar, in hand or installed. Does it mount forward of the OEM bar that's already in the U-channel? And why are there no kits to simply upsize the OEM bar? - is it impossible to remove & reinstall the OEM bar from its endfittings? I've always wondered -- would appreciate your thoughts!


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

The Shine bar mounts forward the OEM, but proper installation should remove some of the OEM rubber bolster that locates the OEM bar in the U-channel so that the Shine bar can sit far enough into the U channel for best location of the fixing bolts.
Given the integrated assembly of the OEM bar, U-channel, and trailing arms, there is little motivation, or need actually, to remove it. The approach of simply adding to it is definitely the best combination of cost, effort, and effectiveness.
My professional employment has been welding and welding metallurgy in the upstream and downstream gas/oil and pretrochemical industry. 


_Modified by NewbieBaby at 9:41 PM 2-3-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Some news here...... We took the bar out this morning and actually it was NOT fully broken! Basically behind, where I could not see when mounted, there was few millimeters of material left that was holding the two parts together. But I guess it was already with small enough section as to "twist" easier and in fact the two parts do not look coaxial anymore. The interesting part is that the crack is not on the welding, but around the welding, so, few millimeters from the boss, just where the welding ends. We inspected is as well as we can, using a strong light and it was possible to see how a new crack started on the other opposite boss, only fee millimeters long for the moment. So, I guess this explains why I was hearing the terrible noise, but I did not really notice difference in handling. Of course, once I heard the big noise at that parking after the drive, then I drove very slowly after that, as the bar continued to make noises even with slow driving in curves, and I was thinking that it comes from the fact the cut is not a straight cut and the parts are touching (even broken) and make noise....... Anyway, I think I was lucky enough that actually it did not fully broke, but just went beyond certain point and made some "just in time" noises as to prevent the fun of having the full break in a scary situation.....
NewbieBaby, I am shipping it tonight to you for the analysis. Sorry, I wiped the bar little as it was really super dirty, but can assure you we did not even scratch the cracks, neither we try to put stuff in them, etc. I just did not get the post early enough and wiped the dirt, sorry, hope did not contaminate too much...... And no worries about mixing Geoff's work with yours! I fully understand, just did not write it in the proper way







I will contact him and once you are done, maybe we can ship it to him for some microns counting







I have absolutely no problem to send it even to Dick afterward, if this would really help him somehow. By the way, feel absolutely free to fully break the bar as to have better look inside! The bar is already useless like it is, and I have no intention to claim any warranty. You actually do not really need to ship it back to me, but we can talk about this later. And please let me take care of all the expanses on the possible shipping it around here and there. What you are going to provide is already priceless for all of us, so let me take care of all the rest at least!
Now, here is a pretty important note I would like ot make and hope everyone who had been reading here till now would find time to go slowly through this....... One of the hottest debate here had been about the "terrible understeering" when going stock springs on the rear, with everything else Shine. A group of people were pretty strong defending their opinion on how this car would understeer a lot, because the basics in theory say so. Then on the other side was Ian (and Ceilidh, but from different prospective) who with real life experience show quiet the opposite. Well, not really the opposite, but at least that such car could be quiet easy to push, predictable and fun to drive....... So, I think this bar broke just tin time as to find out something quiet important here (Ian is gonna laugh now







). As from this morning I drive this car with no Shine bar at all, and this new experience leads me to make a statement that both parties involved in the above described debate are actually right! And how would that be?...... Well, to make the long story short, I must say (actually confirm with what Ian had said earlier) that the massive Shine bar make very big difference in this whole equation! So, when the people were saying such car will "push", yes, they were right because it really feels very prone to understeer. The problem is that the people who were talking about this did not have in mind the particular Shine bar that compensates for the soft springs! So, Ian on the other side says the car is almost perfect and very driveable, etc because he has the bar and actually experiences in real life how much the bar compensates for those softer springs...... So, I really think both parties are quiet right. No, it is not to try to please everybody here, no! I just realize this morning, from driving this new car to me, that the bar is a lot more than what I thought! I can see now what does it mean to have stiff front springs and soft rears. It is not fun, it is quiet a downgrade, but that is the first impression. I will keep it this way for few days or weeks and see what I can learn from that. Will try to go up with rear rebound and see how much compensation can this give for the missing bar (well, at least instant compensation, we know it is not a full time compensation)........ and the last comment I want to make is that the absence of the bar improved overall comfort, specially in the city driving. I thought the bar take away some comfort on some particular uneven surfaces (when not parallel) but I did not know it takes that much of comfort! On highway is noticeable improvement, in the city is very, very noticeable improvement! Makes me wonder what would be to put back the rear Shine springs.......







Keep in touch, people! Have a good day


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Hey guys, we're making this thread the 2nd longest suspension thread! Congrats! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Putting just the Shine rear springs back on won't really help much.
The guy I bought my suspension from had done that. Springs, dampers,
and never bothered to install the RSB, so he was pretty disappointed
in it, which is why he sold it to me. The bar *is* at least half the Shine 
suspension equation, and I knew that then, which is why I didn't
hesitate to buy everything from him, and have been happy ever since. 
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*

I always believe your posts, but this time it is nice as we are going over with real life experience as to boost the theory, and yes, I can now join you full time when you say that that particular bar is a lot more than what people (me included) think. I may as well put the springs as to have one more confirmation of what you are saying, but I can already tell that the Stock rears are very soft an lousy spring by itself and were a great "magic" spring (felt like) when the bar was inside. I feel like this bar can make almost every soft spring perform like a champ when put together...... just a feel thought, not a statement







but I am really impressed by the great work the Shine bar does. I have replaced several springs and shocks through the last two years, but this is by far the component that is most missed, right from corner one!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Oldman wrote on page 7
�gI would also add that it is not the rear spring the changes ride as much as RSB. The aftermarket RSB makes the rear think it is a live axle, any bump on one side of the car will try to pickup the entire rear and compress both springs. Starts getting crazy when you have a stock high perf bar and a Shine bar. It really is like a live axle at this point when it comes to jounce induced bumps on one side of the car. Your trying to flex a large beam, a large factory bar and a HUGE aftermarket bar all from one tire. Of course if you hit a speed bump straight on the whole thing just moves up. but any pot hole or drive way taken at a angle you can really feel the bounce. 
My volvo just stays planted, I got these bad bumps in front of my street where I come off the highway. My Volvo takes these with control, my TDI with RSB is just all over the place in the rear it is crazy. yes worst with stiffer rear springs but crazy with RSB and really crazy with stiff rear springs and RSB. �h
Oldman wrote on page 7
�gThe problem with the VW is the twist beam, same as on a dodge and on a Nissan. The stiffer RSB really effects how she rides over pot holes (one side motion). I've gone thru two different home made RSB and now I have the shine, and for each upgrade the pot hole type ride has gone WAY down. I may pull the Shine RSB and just run the stock rear springs with clamp/ spacer /clamp 90 degrees apart for 1/2 coil isolation.�h
Pyce wrote on page 11_ �gand the last comment I want to make is that the absence of the bar improved overall comfort, specially in the city driving. I thought the bar take away some comfort on some particular uneven surfaces (when not parallel) but I did not know it takes that much of comfort! On highway is noticeable improvement, in the city is very, very noticeable improvement!�h _

Moral of the story: �galways listen to the oldman�h


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (oldmanTDI)*

Oldman







..... Do not get this wrong! It is NOT about listening or not listening to you (or others), it IS about that fact that no post, no description can actually make you FEEL what is all this about! I said it before and would repeat it again - it is like sex on the Internet - what do you really feel? nothing! Just pictures, words, sounds....but that is it







The real thing is the way to go! So, what we are doing here is not doubting your thoughts, it is going over those thoughts with real life personal experiments, as to quantify your words and advise. You have to agree here, one thing is to know (from theory) what gives what, but entirely different thing is to find out (from experience) how much is really the "what gives what"....... people come here and say "I got a set of ______ coilovers and the ride is fantastic smooth!"....... then somebody read it and goes and gets the same set and it is so disappointed, because different people put different meaning behind the same words. I think the major contribution ot this topic is actually that few of us are going through the same thing and finding out that we feel the same way (or at least similar) and because of that - I will, from now on, know that for example I can take your words more in consideration, but not because ot please you, but because your conclusions are very close to mine when using the same material as me - so, in the future then, when you test a spring and tell me "this is firm and gives this and that" I will take that word to the bank, because I know your criteria is very close to mine..... It is all about synchronizing our thoughts as to make sure we are on the same page and when we say a word, the menaing below is the same!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

I know, gee if the oldlady only knew about this internet sex thing










_Modified by oldmanTDI at 9:42 PM 2-4-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Some news here...... We took the bar out this morning ..... I must say (actually confirm with what Ian had said earlier) that the massive Shine bar make very big difference in this whole equation! So, when the people were saying such car will "push", yes, they were right because it really feels very prone to understeer. The problem is that the people who were talking about this did not have in mind the particular Shine bar that compensates for the soft springs! So, Ian on the other side says the car is almost perfect and very driveable, etc because he has the bar and actually experiences in real life how much the bar compensates for those softer springs...... So, I really think both parties are quiet right. No, it is not to try to please everybody here, no! I just realize this morning, from driving this new car to me, that the bar is a lot more than what I thought! I can see now what does it mean to have stiff front springs and soft rears. It is not fun, it is quiet a downgrade, but that is the first impression. I will keep it this way for few days or weeks and see what I can learn from that. Will try to go up with rear rebound and see how much compensation can this give for the missing bar (well, at least instant compensation, we know it is not a full time compensation)........ and the last comment I want to make is that the absence of the bar improved overall comfort, specially in the city driving. I thought the bar take away some comfort on some particular uneven surfaces (when not parallel) but I did not know it takes that much of comfort! On highway is noticeable improvement, in the city is very, very noticeable improvement! Makes me wonder what would be to put back the rear Shine springs.......







Keep in touch, people! Have a good day









Hello Peter,
Great posts! Please keep the info flowing -- this is really interesting!
Just to clarify: you're seeing much more body roll, understeer, and general imprecision now that you're without the Shine RSB, correct? And if so, how does Shine front/stock rear/ no bar compare with the straight stock setup -- is the understeer and general feel actually worse, or does the reduction in roll counteract some of the stock understeer? I'm also really eager to hear what happens when you put the Shine rear springs back on, both in terms of ride and handling. One of the big questions I've always had was just how strong (in terms of actual spring rate, measured at the wheel) are these various antiroll bars, as without knowing what their relative strengths are, it's really hard to predict what different bar & spring combinations will do --- however, if you actually do the experiments you're proposing, that will provide a lot of information, from which one can work backwards. 
Just to give you some background, on one of my first MG's, I put on a really stiff front bar (220% stiffer than stock), and the ride was just terrible!! -- even though I was still on stock springs. After that I went back to the stock bar, and increased front spring rate by 37%: that combination rode almost as well as stock, but the roll was somewhere in between stock vs. big bar. After a lot of experimentation, I eventually wound up with 37% stiffer springs, and a bar that was 52% stiffer than stock: that combination gave me a ride that was fairly close to stock, but the roll was almost as well controlled as it was with the really uncomfortable huge bar with soft springs. Of course, shortly after that I read a textbook that discussed how the bars have to be matched to the springs if a smooth ride is a concern, which would have saved me a lot of work, had I read it first.

Anyway, I'm curious to see whether the behaviour of an archaic MGB front suspension is at all similar to that of a modern VW rear suspension -- not likely, no doubt(!), but if the experiences at all transfer over, when you compare the [Shine rears / no bar] vs. the [stock rears / big RSB], you might find something like: 
1) the ride is firmer, more "snubbed" in feel and a little faster reacting on bumps, but somehow better controlled, less crashy & jolty, and less erratic on sharp potholes and the like (with the big bar on my MG, on a really sharp pothole, the car would momentarily "stagger", like someone who's been punched, before settling back in). 

2) roll is perhaps more (though here's a case where it'd be good to know what the actual RSB rate is -- it's possible that the roll is not much worse at all), in which case the rear feels a little less "solid" in a corner (though this feeling tends to be counteracted by lowered rear ride height). 

3) irrespective of the amount of roll, the way in which the car rolls feels somehow different: although the initial amount of roll might be greater, the roll is somehow "deeper" -- as the car rolls further, the suspension doesn't give up, and you can feel it working to push you back up. As such the roll rate is more linear than before, and somehow the car feels a little "livelier", a little more danceable. What you lose in rock solid feel, you gain back in a sort of liveliness. 

At least on my MG, #1,2,3 together meant that the [stiffer springs/mild bar] was a lot more fun than the [soft spring/heavy bar] setup -- slower on good roads, but more fun & more comfortable. 

Anyway, a reasonable person shouldn't expect very much of the above (which comes from the front end of a RWD car) to translate over to the rear suspension of your FWD VW -- but I am kind of curious to hear whether you encounter any of the same (or different) sensations when you put on the stiff Shine rears. So please do keep us posted, and thanks again for posting everything! 
- W
P.S. -- for those who have only driven cars that actually work, an MGB is a roughly Miata-sized British car from the 60's; it weighs about 2200 lbs, is RWD with a leaf-sprung live axle, and it breaks down with astonishing regularity. About the only thing it has in common with a VW Golf/Jetta is that it has 4 wheels.... (plus it's unbelievably fun, when properly set up)


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Anyway, a reasonable person shouldn't expect very much of the above (which comes from the front end of a RWD car) to translate over to the rear suspension of your FWD VW -- but I am kind of curious to hear whether you encounter any of the same (or different) sensations when you put on the stiff Shine rears. So please do keep us posted, and thanks again for posting everything! 


And that's mainly what I think when I hear people compare front engined, RWD suspension tuning to FWD tuning. 
Interesting, but mostly not relevant. In a well balanced RWD car it's generally always better
to do most of the suspension tuning with the spring rates, and then just tweak the balance of the car
with sway bars. Want a little more oversteer, can add a rear bar, or decrease the stiffness
of the front bar.. etc. Add more power, and you may want to do the opposite to give you
more motive grip at the back.. and decrease front lateral traction a bit, for a more neutral feel
under power. 
The Vdub's suspension is only "modern" when compared to the MG's, but otherwise has been
pretty much unchanged since the mid 70's Rabbit. It's front engined, front wheel drive
with a weight distribution anywhere between 65/35 and 70/30. These cars live on their front
tires. The front end is so heavy it glides over bumps even with high rate springs. The rear
is so light that it bounces on bumps even with relatively low rate springs, and that's
what you feel in the seat of your pants, the rear end bouncing around. The car isn't
balanced enough to begin with, to expect anything good out of simply raising the rear spring rates
which is where the big rear sway bar comes into play. It gives you the cornering benefits
while still allowing the rear spring rates to be reasonably soft. Another thing.. A front engine,
RWD car really can't afford to spend any time on 3 wheels. If the front sway is stiff enough
to allow that, then steering feel is going to be pretty bad. Obviously if it lifts in the inside
rear, you lose all motive traction. A FWD V-dub can afford to give up all the lateral traction
from the inside rear tires, because it adds nothing to the total lateral grip of the car,
and the rear bar can actually transfer some of the total weight to the inside front tire
giving you more lateral or motive grip at the front where it's needed. 
I can predict what Peter will find with the rear Shine springs without the bar. The ride quality
will diminish noticeably from stock. The rear lateral grip will probably improve over the stock rear 
springs, but there'll be nearly as much understeer. You'll be able to take the corners fairly
quickly, but just won't enjoy them, and if you get on the gas midcorner it'll feel
even worse as there's just nothing to balance out the loss of lateral traction at the
front that you've traded for motive traction. The car will just be unbalanced. 
That's my prediction at least.
ian


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Oldman







..... Do not get this wrong! It is NOT about listening or not listening to you (or others), it IS about that fact that no post, no description can actually make you FEEL what is all this about! ...The real thing is the way to go! So, what we are doing here is not doubting your thoughts, it is going over those thoughts with real life personal experiments, as to quantify your words and advise. You have to agree here, one thing is to know (from theory) what gives what, but entirely different thing is to find out (from experience) how much is really the "what gives what"....... people come here and say "I got a set of ______ coilovers and the ride is fantastic smooth!"....... then somebody read it and goes and gets the same set and it is so disappointed, because different people put different meaning behind the same words. I think the major contribution ot this topic is actually that few of us are going through the same thing and finding out that we feel the same way (or at least similar) and because of that .....

Excellent point. That's what I have been suggesting to people who were asking "what's best handling, ride, etc..." GET A RIDE IN ONE! It even is true when people ask for the best handling car. Although, handling is a little more objective than ride quality/suspension feel. It still is subjective to the "driver". Some people like a little oversteering car to play with throttle in a corner, some want it 100% neutral (if ever achieved) and some like little or some understeer. The turn-in, body roll, predictability of the suspension, what tires they match with it, etc... also determines what is "BEST" to that particular person.
I listened to people here or local tuners and didn't experiment them which wasted my money and time since I had to change my suspension twice and have to do it again







.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Daemon42)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
And that's mainly what I think when I hear people compare front engined, RWD suspension tuning to FWD tuning. 
Interesting, but mostly not relevant. The car will just be unbalanced. 
That's my prediction at least.
ian

Hi Ian,
No dispute about the handling balance; FWD and RWD will be different, which is why I've always been careful to point out my RWD background. But if you read through my post, my questions center on the difference in feel / ride between a stiff bar/ soft spring vs. soft bar/ stiff spring combo, not on handling balance, and that's something that often translates quite well between RWD and FWD. Peter might well find the Shine rears too stiff even without the big bar, as he's going up a fair bit between stock and Shine, but I'm asking him for qualitative impressions of how the "feel" changes when he does so. You have a big bar/ soft spring combo that works well, and that's great; that's one data point, and hopefully Peter will give us another fairly soon. It may well turn out that your Shine Lite setup (or its stock spring variant) is the ideal, but it's also plausible that a better balanced combo (moderate spring/ moderate bar) might also feel pretty nice. When Peter puts on the rear Shines, he'll have gone over to the opposite side of moderate from where he was before (from stiff bar/ soft spring to soft bar/ stiff spring), and his impressions will give a really useful new data point. So let's just see what he discovers, and then we can discuss why, and together (along with Oldman, Alexb75, and Peter) build a good working theory that can help others tune their cars (and yes, it's quite likely he'll wind up proving that your current set up is the ideal!).
Peace,
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Ceilidh...... Sorry for not being quick enough, I thought of writing few things last night, but had to take the car on some twisters as to be able to answer better, and that could not happen before this morning..... So, here are few things I would like to say to everyone....
1. Oldman has the Rear Shine springs as I wanted him to try them and give us his point of view, as he had been playing with all sorts of stock fronts and rears, his home made bar, now the Shine bar, and variety of other tricks, so I was thinking it will be great if he tries that and compare. He is currently busy with other more important things, so we will wait till he is done and only then I may have the rears here, so it will take some time to answer your questions on shine rear no bar vs.. stock rear with bar comparison. Oldman, please take your time, no rush! .....
2. At this point, I think that Ian's setup (Shine front, Stock rear, Shine bar) is really the best compromise that I have ever experienced! Took the car for a drive this morning in the mountains and the bar is not there and is missed very much! It is really very, very clear why the debate about soft rears-stiff fronts started and why both sides were opposite so much...... the bar really make a lot more difference than what perhaps people experienced with other bars on other setups. I do not know rates and numbers, that shine bar with the Stock rear springs is just one piece of beauty, because the comfort is very near stock, but the character of the car in curve transforms much more than what some of us could imagine. I think I have really nothing more to say, other came out with this setup long time ago, all I can confirm is that it could be the Absolute Grand Touring package for great driving experience plus a lot of comfort for pure pleasure! 
3. That said (above) I am not giving up on exploring what the stock rear alone (no bar) would give us, because if you all remember, the car has Koni adjustable and right now (for comparison reasons) they are on full soft. Now, we did (not long time ago) the left-Bilstein, right-Koni thing, but I believe we have to do it all over again, as the Shine bar came out to be stronger than what I thought and all those results may be too off if it were to compare with no bar at all ..... So, I think the next step would be to jump the rebound to at least 25% on the rear and see what happens. Then perhaps even try again the one side Bilstein and the other side Koni and see what all this does to more modest setup, such as no rear bar at all. I think would be more realistic and more useful for people who do not intend to get a rear bar, but just play with shocks...
4. Now, all those nice words said (for the Shine Lite), I would like to make few more comments on the current setup (Shine front, Stock rear, no bar). After this morning drive (about one hour on curves up and down and no traffic) it is pretty clear that the car understeers! I thought it was prone to understeer because once the bar was out, the steering wheel became noticeably lighter and also it felt like the air pressure on the front tires went up....... so, all these feelings were making me think if the front is lighter (feels like it) then it is clear sign of less grip, which would eventually translate into more understeer if the car gets going faster...... guess the method of thinking might have been wrong, but the results are right as when get going, the car starts "pushing" noticeably! The nice part thought, is that the rear now acts like it is no longer there.... I mean, it is so well planted, it feel like there is no way you can make that car oversteer! I know such statement may sound little strong, but compare to the previous setups, this one is really the "less scary" (if I can say that) to drive, because all you have to concentrate is the front and just forget about the rear as it will follow no matter what. Now, Ian may come here and say that the "Shine Lite" plants the rear well too and it never comes out, and I do believe that as from the experiments on the previous page, BUT the feeling that the rear is in desire to go out can be quiet disturbing, specially for street use, and I hope some will agree with me on this. Well, at least in my case, I had always been "worry" about the rear as I had lost it unexpectedly in the past (Full Shine, water!) and if you are not prepared (low speed) it is not pleasant thing to have. So, maybe again, the Shine Lite is much safer than the Full Shine, but it still gives the feeling that the rear may go (and it actually go slowly, you can induce it)....while today's setup feels like the rear is totally taken care of and gives very nice "relaxed" feel, so you can place all the attention on the front..... Now, this said, I do not mean to imply that it is "better" or "faster", but the safer feel "MAY" help someone actually drive it faster, raising the personal limits, just because it feels like it is "easier" and more controllable..... The only negative feel is actually the body roll that makes you feel unstable and makes you feel that the car is going somewhere, but if you can get used to this feel, perhaps it is snot that bad..... I mean, once you put the car in the corner and it seats on the outer wheels, and if you do not continuously correct, it actually stays there pretty well planted! The problem is that "insert" in the curve is not so precise and combined with the rolling, gives some erratic thoughts and does not really feel so great...... but if you can get used after few curves and approach them differently, it is really not that bad! I am looking forward to see what the rebound will do....
5. And here is where the most important (to me) part of the post is..... How do I really define what is "good handling car"? How do I really quantify the "understeering"? How do I decide how much body roll is too much and how much is too little?...Yes, we all know, you get into a corner with a car and turn the wheels and of the car goes straight, then you have understeer, but this is way too simplistic. Who and how is determined at exactly which speed the front should break free and start sliding, so the car can be classified as "understeering" and where the thin line is from "heavy understeering" to "moderate understeering"? I mean, from driving all these different setups, I can say that all of them are understeering big time - if the car is thrown into the curve at incredibly high speed. All of them will go straight like a champ! You get even a Porsche and get into the corner way too fast, and it is understeering, but we all know Porsches are classified as oversteering cars....why? Because if the corner is taken below the limit or at the limit, not above, the car will oversteer, no? So, where is this limit? How do I determine "how much understeer this setup is?" ..... For example, the "Shine Lite" I kind of had for some time before the bar broke - That drive before it broke was almost fantastic. Yes, it was not as planted as when driven full shine, BUT I felt safer and the car felt like was giving me more feedback on what is going on, instead of just flying flat on rails like with a full shine and not feeling where and when is going to fly of the road..... Because, to me (and I may be wrong big time here) the flatter the car, the less feeling I have of what is going on! It may be faster, but I feel more like a passenger who seats there, holds the handle and does not really know when is this going to go, because no tires advise, no body roll gives feelings, nothing. It is all tire's grip and if those are silent like the S-03, I get scared some time.... So, rewind back, today situation, soft rears, no bar, the body rolls, the rear follows like a dog, you really start working with that car to make it go well. Working with the steering wheel, correct all the time, because the curves you are use to are now different (well, they are the same, but the front is not as precise, so adjustment is needed to learn the new way) but overall, the car seems "easier" to drive. Anticipates more what is going to happen (with the body roll which I would perceive like body language







) and gives a lot more time for you to correct, and after tens of curves, when you learn slowly the new behavior, it can be pretty fast too. It becomes like a different way to enjoy the same thing - driving! So, learning the new way means you approach the curve differently, maybe little slower and then all you have to care of is the front that wants to go out, and that is it - the rear no longer exist (like). At this point, the question is - is this how would safely we can quantify "understeer"? Is this "heavy understeer"? Is this moderate one? Mind you, I drive a complete stocker too, and the one now (Shine front, Stock rear, no bar) is still significantly less rolling, more precise, more grip, etc than a complete stocker, so the-last-standing-hero in my setup (the Front Shine) continues to do an outstanding job by keeping that geometry right on the money - so, I know that the understeer I have now is not any near the understeer a stocker has, so we are still into good waters here. Therefore, I want to understand how exactly, what is a good way, to quantify understeer (or oversteer) so we can understand each other more when we talk and try to compare impressions....... hope this last one was not confusing, English is not my forte. Thanks everybody, we all learning a lot here ..... well, maybe some of us, as the rest been there already


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
Really interesting posts!
Just so I can keep track of all your findings, let me take a first stab at putting things into a table. If I remember correctly, thus far you've sampled full stock, stock with Bilsteins, full Shine/Bilstein, Shine/Bilstein with stock rears, Shine/Koni with stock rears, Shine/Koni with H&R OE rears, and now Shine/Koni/stock rears/no bar (I'm leaving out the mixed Koni/Bilstein, as it sounds like you don't recommend it). Out of those, it sounded like the extremes were the full Shine/Bilstein and the full stock, where in...
Full Shine/Bilstein: most grip, most "neutral" (least understeer), most precise, least roll, harshest ride (though acceptable on most roads)
Full Stock (TDI? 2.0?): least grip, most understeer, least precise, most roll, softest ride.
If so, let's use a 1-10 scale, with "10" the most desirable, using the Shine and stock setups to define the endpoints. Hence:
Grip: Shine = 10; Stock = 1
Neutrality: Shine = 10; Stock = 1
Precision: Shine = 10; Stock = 1
(Perceived) Reduction in Roll: Shine = 10; Stock = 1
Soft Ride/ Comfort: Stock = 10; Shine = 1
Forgiving Nature: Stock = 10; Shine =1 (note: Shine is *not* unsafe!)
(We can adjust these categories if people want; e.g., it might be nice to have more handling classes, such as turn-in, lift-throttle oversteer, etc., but the above is just a first try...)
Given the above, Peter, do these numbers seem about right to you?:

S/B = Stock/Bilstein
ShF/K = Shine Front springs, Koni shocks (your current setup)
ShLite = Shine front springs, Shine antiroll bar, Konis, stock rear springs (your much-loved recent setup)
ShLite/B = as above, but with Bilsteins in place of the Konis
ShH&R = Shine fronts, Shine bar, Konis, H&R OE rear springs
Sh/B = Shine front & rear springs, Shine bar, Bilstein shocks
All comparisons based on 205/55-16 touring tires(?)
Stock S/B ShF/K ShLite ShLite/B ShH&R Sh/B
Grip 1 3 5 8 8 8 10
Neutrality 1 1 3 7 7 8 10
Precision 1 3 5 8 8 8 10
Perceived Flatness 1 2 5 7 7 7 10
Comfort 10 4 8 7 3 5 1
Forgiveness: 10 10 10 6 6 6 1
Peter, I just took a wild guess at the numbers -- if you could please adjust them to actually reflect what you've experienced, that would be great.
Everyone else, once Peter has adjusted his numbers, we can use his scale as a baseline to compare your own experiences. To really do it right, we'll need you to have had personal experience with any two of the above setups: that will define your scale, and you can then chime in with other setups (e.g., Alexb75, if you've tried a stock and a full Shine, you can then give us your numbers for your Sofsport/Koni combo; Oldman, your A4 numbers would be greatly appreciated too!)
In any event, I'll keep an updated table on my computer, and someday when we're all finished experimenting, we can look at the results all at once.
And, if this turns out not to work out, at least we tried!








Thanks everyone! -- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Stock S/B ShF/K ShLite ShLite/B ShH&R Sh/B
Grip 1 3 5 8 8 8 10
Neutrality 1 1 3 7 7 8 10
Precision 1 3 5 8 8 8 10
Perceived Flatness 1 2 5 7 7 7 10
Comfort 10 4 8 7 3 5 1
Forgiveness: 10 10 10 6 6 6 1


Yipes! Ok, anyone know how to make a table appear correctly on a posting? (I had it all spaced properly when I typed it, honest!) Anyway, let me try a super condensed version (probably easier to discuss anyway):
Full Stock:
Handling = 1; Comfort = 10
Stock with Bilsteins:
Handling = 3; Comfort = 4
Konis, Shine fronts:
Handling = 5; Comfort = 8.5?
Konis, Shine fronts, Shine bar:
Handling = 8; Comfort = 7
Bilsteins, Shine fronts, Shine bar:
Handling = 8; Comfort = 3
Full Shine/ Bilstein:
Handling = 10; Comfort = 1
Hope that's easier to read!







Once again Peter, could you please adjust these numbers to reflect what you actually felt? (And could you please confirm: Shine fronts/ stock rears/ no bar still understeers less than the pure stock setup?) Thank you!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Oh boy! This is what I was hoping NOT to happen ..... to have to quantify via numbers for different setups! Winst, I am afraid I can screw up here very easy and mislead everybody. And this is more or less the reason I put the #5 issue in my last post - I am really not sure how exactly to measure things, like understeer, grip, etc...... I can make a list in order of what I like more than what, but that is so personal, it may not be good guide, specially for someone who looks to replace something existing which he/she doe snot like.... Yes, it will be a joke to put few numbers, but I am afraid to someone else those numbers may be different and presto, the wrong advise is here..... I may try to put few numbers, but I need more time and need to concentrate little bit more and try to remember past feelings, etc. Need to drive the car little bit more as it is right now. This is kind of conclusive part, where will be very easy to make a mistake in evaluation and commit a big mislead..... I will try, because it is exciting and after all, we have to do a one-post-conclusion, so, let me read the whole topic again and make some notes and then drive little bit more. I hope next week to be able to give few numbers, but most of all, I hope they will not be too much off


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

got the rear springs in, I installed spacers in the front VR6 springs so the rate is very close to a Shine front spring, as predicted the car is like on rails, very tight, very tossable like my BMWs, ride not so good, but not as bad as I thought (already had the shine RSB in). I did note that the RSB bolts were loose again, this is the third time I tighten them! So I'll check in a few weeks. Overall, for me it is tied. I like:
VR6 front, stock rear springs with spacers (no clamps), bilstein TC
I like 
VR6 front with spacers (close to shine rate), shine 180 rear, shine RSB. 
I could live with each as the trade off is bout even. Now if I had some S03 tires.... who knows?
This is way too expensive now but if I can find a 337 rear beam setup I'd like to try the first setup with the 337 beam, 337 Bar, 337 bushing.


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (oldmanTDI)*

I really cannot rate the full Shine a 1 on the comfort scale. Maybe 4/10. Bump stops, just say no. 
I need to find a track where one can go fast without significant risk. One can only get so far zigzaging down the [empty] freeway.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (NewbieBaby)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NewbieBaby* »_I really cannot rate the full Shine a 1 on the comfort scale. Maybe 4/10. Bump stops, just say no. 
I need to find a track where one can go fast without significant risk. One can only get so far zigzaging down the [empty] freeway.


Do you have the full shine without front bar or with? Let me tell you, I drove a fully shined car "ON TRACK" without front bar and it was risky alright!


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

BTW the rear springs 180 lbs-in have about 3/4 of an inch to go before the shock hits the bump stop, these are Bilstein TC plain version.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Oh boy! This is what I was hoping NOT to happen ..... to have to quantify via numbers for different setups! Winst, I am afraid I can screw up here very easy and mislead everybody. And this is more or less the reason I put the #5 issue in my last post - I am really not sure how exactly to measure things, like understeer, grip, etc...... I can make a list in order of what I like more than what, but that is so personal, it may not be good guide, specially for someone who looks to replace something existing which he/she doe snot like.... Yes, it will be a joke to put few numbers, but I am afraid to someone else those numbers may be different and presto, the wrong advise is here..... I may try to put few numbers, but I need more time and need to concentrate little bit more and try to remember past feelings, etc. Need to drive the car little bit more as it is right now. This is kind of conclusive part, where will be very easy to make a mistake in evaluation and commit a big mislead..... I will try, because it is exciting and after all, we have to do a one-post-conclusion, so, let me read the whole topic again and make some notes and then drive little bit more. I hope next week to be able to give few numbers, but most of all, I hope they will not be too much off









Oh my goodness -- I'm making a really big mistake here! Let me try to correct things before they get too far out of hand(!) ---
1) First off, many apologies -- to everyone, but especially to Dick Shine, if he's reading along -- for putting up such a misleading post without adequate explanation. Before going any farther, please let me say that I did not intend to imply that the Shine suspension has an abysmally poor ride, and that I do apologize for creating that impression. If there's anyone just joining this thread, please know that many people find the Shine ride to be quite comfortable!!
2) Peter, sorry to have put you in an awkward spot! If you have time, let's take this offline, where I can explain my questions more fully to you; if after hearing the explanation, you think the questions will be more easily answered, we can work on an evaluation (maybe with some of the other guys offline too), then report back to this thread when we can state results without misrepresentation or misinterpretation.
3) As to why and how I made such an error here: briefly put, I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to cut the length of my posts, and hence put up that little rating scale without explanation; then, when I saw the formatting problems with the table, I simplified things without thinking, which made everything even worse. Again, sorry everyone! If you're curious as to what exactly went wrong, please feel free to read #4, below; otherwise, have a good weekend, everybody, and please ignore my previous 2 posts!
- W
4) [What I should have explained/done -- only for those who are interested in engineering product development (very long and very boring, otherwise -- it's all about methodology, and there's no handling information or discussion at all. Boring, boring, boring!)]:
Peter, what I was trying to do, but did not at all explain, was to address your well-stated question of "How do we assess the results of our experiments when so much of handling is subjective and related to personal preference & experience?". To reduce the subjectivity, I was trying (very shoddily, unfortunately) to bring in a technique we commonly use in product development, which goes as follows:
A) First we pick a set of metrics that can be objectively measured, and that are not directly tied to personal preference. In the area of handling, for example, different people can have very different perceptions as to what makes for "good handling" (which is therefore unacceptably subjective), but most people can agree that, yes, car A rolls in corners more than does car B; and Car C has more steady state understeer than Car D. That was why the initial table had things like "roll", "understeer/oversteer", "precision". The idea is to first establish how the suspensions differ on these somewhat-less-subjective parameter, without worrying at all about how much roll or understeer/oversteer or etc. is actually desirable.
Note that I completely violated this principle in the second email, when I collapsed all the handling metrics into a single "handling" rating -- I can't believe I did that (major, major brain hiccup -- one that would have got me in a lot of trouble at my old job!). Sorry about that.
B) After we pick the metrics (amount of roll, etc.), we then establish a uniform scale based NOT on what is desirable or normal, but on the endmembers of what's actually been tested. Or in plain English, we don't say "I think a car should roll no more than this much, and we'll call that a "7"; hence a car that rolls a little too much gets a "5", one that stays flatter than the minimum gets a "9", and one that corners on its door handles gets a "1"." Instead, we say that "Car A rolls the most of all our cars, and that level of roll is called "1"; Car G rolls the least, and that level of roll is called "10". If a car rolls halfway between A and G, we'll give it a 5 or a 6." We do that so that the scale doesn't get gummed up by different people's views of what is acceptable or unacceptable: I might think Cars A through G all roll way too much in corners, while my buddy Henry might think even Car A is just fine, but even though we disagree about what's "acceptable", we can both agree that Cars C and D are about a third of the way between A and G, and Car F is so close to G as to be almost indistinguishable.
For the set of cars that you've personally tested, it seemed like the Shine and the Stock setups defined the extremes on every metric -- hence I used them to define the "1" and "10" positions on each scale. If at some future time you test something that goes beyond the scale (e.g., suppose you try some kit that rolls even less than Shine or more than Stock), we simply extend the scale upwards ("Ours go to 11..."), or downwards (to 0, -1, -2, etc.). The scales are meaningless in terms of what is desired, or even what is or is not a big change (the difference between 1 and 10 might be enormous in roll, but not very big at all in steering precision) -- they exist only so the engineering team can gauge the relative effect of different changes.
I didn't violate this particular condition, but I did violate the next one, big time, which is why I started this particular post with an apology to Dick Shine.....
C) The final principle, which I did not heed at all, is that when you're putting together your metrics and scales, you never, ever, show it in its raw form to senior management, the client, potential customers, or even the somewhat dimmer or more talkative members of your own marketing team. And that's because the raw numbers are far, far too misleading to those not intimately involved with the experiments:
The average person has a very well-honed and very reasonable expectation as to what a 10-point (or any point) scale means: 10 is absolutely fantastic, 1 is so horrible as to be good only for wrapping fish, and the difference between 1 and 10 is so enormous that going from one to the other should be like crossing the Berlin Wall, circa 1988. Now, if you read point (B), above, you'll see that the engineering evaluation 10-point scale violates pretty much all of these reasonable expectations: the difference between 1 and 10 might be huge or it might be small; "1" might be really bad, or alternatively pretty good; and "10" might still be too little, or just right, or even too much.
So when you show the raw scales to someone not working day to day with you on the experiments, eventually your boss calls you into his/her office one day, all concerned, telling you that he/she's heard through the grapevine that your prototype is only garnering a "3" rating on noise/vibration, and demanding to know why is it that you did not alert him/her earlier about these grave sound isolation problems. At that point, you can try telling your boss that "1" is the noise level of your chief competitor, who already is renowned for quietness, and that "10" is the sound level of a sleeping hamster under 5 pounds of shredded tissue and straw, in the basement of a neighboring house, in wintertime (and hence the whole team is very proud of having attained a "3"), but it'll be too late. A task force will be detailed to "oversee" your project and to take steps to ensure that your "troubled" team is put "back on course".
(By the way: the above didn't actually happen to me; after you watch it happen to somebody else, even just once, you take pains never to share the experience.







)
Anyway, the critical thing about Step (C) is that before you report any results to anyone, you collar a marketing team member whom you actually trust, and you work out what it is that the customer actually wants (How much roll is unacceptable? At what point does a ride go from "firm" to "harsh"?). And then you translate your raw 10-point scale into something that makes sense to the customer (something where 10 is great, 1 is horrible, and the difference between 5 and 6 (or 6 to 7, etc.) is noticeable but not huge.
So my Bad here was to post and invite raw, untranslated scores on a public forum, which was a pretty foolish thing to do. Having done so, I can't be surprised when an intelligent person like NewbieBaby very reasonably interprets my "Shine Ride = 1" rating as implying it has an unacceptable ride -- once again, my apologies to everyone for being so misleading(!).
D) Bottom line, Peter (and anyone else interested), we don't have to do this, or we can compare informal ratings offline. As for how we should eventually post the results, you're absolutely right: a numerical scale might be too misleading and subjective, even in "translated" form, and it might be best to stick with verbal descriptions ("setup C rolls less than Setup B, but some people feel the tail is a little unsteady...."). But even so, having a raw numerical scale of your various impressions (strictly for internal analysis purposes!) can be pretty useful in making up those guidelines. But again, you don't have to do this!
Ok, once again, an overly long posting. Sigh....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Questions fo
_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Do you have the full shine without front bar or with? Let me tell you, I drove a fully shined car "ON TRACK" without front bar and it was risky alright!
r Alexb75
Hello Alex,
Would you mind answering a few questions for me? Thank you!
1) Could you please confirm that your car has Neuspeed Sofsports and Koni yellows (Sports)?
2) If so, what kind of rear anti-roll bar (if any) are you running?
3) Have you ever driven a Shine car (with the front anti-roll bar still in place), either with the Shine rear bar, or without one? If so, could you please tell me how your current setup compares with the Shine, in terms of both handling and ride?
4) Also, could you also describe the difference in handling between your current setup and stock?
I appreciate that grad school must be incredibly busy(!), so I understand if you don't have time. But I'm trying to compile some of the results people have been finding into a rough guide of sorts, and it'd be really helpful to hear how your setup compares with some of the others. Thank you very much regardless, and hope school is going well. Cheers!
- Ceilidh


----------



## vr6ofpain (Feb 5, 2004)

has anyone else with an A3 Jetta VR6, noticed that the Sofsports actually lower the rear about an 1" and not 0.3-0.5" or whatever like neuspeed claimed? both my old 95 GLX(sold) and my current 96 GLX lowered at least 1" in the back with the Sofsports. i am running Bilstein sports, i always wondered if they were installed with the rear spring perch on a lower spot(it is adjustable on the sports)?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (vr6ofpain)*

Winst, IIRC Alex has Neuspeed Sport (not Sof) and he is on bilsteins and I think that was the main reason he joined the topic, as he was wondering if going to Koni will help improve the ride quality.....which I am sure WILL, but it may not be enough (like in my case).....anyway, I am sure he will soon come and tell you more...
Anyway, I spoke to few friends with full Shine in the area, and asked them to go go check their bars for cracks...... So far one guy only checked it and his had developed cracks on both bosses #2 and #3, just like mine. The difference is that his are in initial phase, so looks like the bar is only half cracked and the other difference is that he has less mileage than me on the Kit, but his is Full Shine with 200 lb rears and he NEVER touched anything. So, we are looking at about 20.000 miles Full Shine there. He drives the thing hard, but I would say not more than 2-3% of the time, because the rest of the time he spends on straight line full commute on the highway, so I would say not the individual you would expect to break bars because of heavy duty use or abuse...........
I do not want this topic ot become a "heat topic" about Shine bars, so perhaps we should maybe start a new topic for these issues, and I really can't comment on quality, etc. Maybe really just happened these are the only two cases in the whole West Coast and it is pure causality we happen to be neighbors, I do not know......... I would just like to invite all of you with Shine bars to actually go out and check what is the condition of your bar! Do it for safety, not because somebody said so. I know how many of you never had a problem, etc. but maybe it is time ot actually go below and see for yourself. It may save your life! Pay attention to bosses number 2 and 3 (the two inner ones), really look close with light, as the cracks may be very thin in the first phase........ I am expecting three more locals to go check theirs and report back. Good weekend everybody


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Questions for Alexb75
Hello Alex,
Would you mind answering a few questions for me? Thank you!
1) Could you please confirm that your car has Neuspeed Sofsports and Koni yellows (Sports)?
2) If so, what kind of rear anti-roll bar (if any) are you running?
3) Have you ever driven a Shine car (with the front anti-roll bar still in place), either with the Shine rear bar, or without one? If so, could you please tell me how your current setup compares with the Shine, in terms of both handling and ride?
4) Also, could you also describe the difference in handling between your current setup and stock?
I appreciate that grad school must be incredibly busy(!), so I understand if you don't have time. But I'm trying to compile some of the results people have been finding into a rough guide of sorts, and it'd be really helpful to hear how your setup compares with some of the others. Thank you very much regardless, and hope school is going well. Cheers!
- Ceilidh

Hey Ceilidh,
Grad school is busy as hell, but my spare time is spent here








Well, I have a half-a$$ setup right now, mostly because of the fact that I spent my money on different setups and have none left right now. I have Bilstein Sport + Neuspeed Sport (which is the same spring rate as Sofsport with 1" more lowering), and right now no swaybar. So, seemingly I do suffer from lower roll effect, which I have not been able to experience personally. One thing though: I *"LIKE"* the lowered (NOT SLAMMED) look and whenever I look at my car parked in a parking lot, or on a street it brings me joy!  So, I am willing to sacrifice "some" handling for looks and to be honest I am still not sure if the roll-center affects handling as much as it's been talked about. I have 2 fingers gap front and a little less in the rear, the car is completely balanced (same height front/rear). 
I first came on here and was told that H&R cupkit is very nice riding and very good handling setup. So, I got H&R cupkit, which dropped the car 2”, the setup was fairly soft compared to my current suspension. After I got more into vortex and because of reading that Lowering thread (the sticky thread) I got so scared driving my car because of the always talked about (and IMO exaggerated) lower roll-center, I removed the suspension and went back to stock (cost me $200)







. I immediately regretted it and got _*“VERY SUSPICIOUS”*_of Shine claims and others on these threads that the stock suspension outperforms lowered suspensions. 
My next step was to either put that suspension back on or get another one. H&R cupkit, although offered better handling than stock but still wasn’t good enough for my track days, I also had some front swaybar rubbing, and a bouncy ride. So, decided to get another setup.
My research of almost 6 months took me to Neuspeed Sport + Bilstein Sport combo. I was told here on vortex that the Bilstein is fairly nice riding and my local Neuspeed dealer also said that Bilstein rides nicer than Koni. I then drove one with rear Neuspeed 28mm swaybar in an AutoX and was sold right away. That car “FOR SOME REASON” also was riding fairly well. 
After getting Neuspeed sport + Neuspeed valved Bilstein Sport… I immediately felt a great improvement over stock and my previous H&R cupkit. The car was finally could be called on rails (still no swaybar). I took it to one Auto-X event, and two track events and even my driving instructor was very impressed with the handling. 
The car sill has understeer but it is VERY EASILY controllable. Body roll is much less, dive and squat almost gone and turn-in is VERY fast, the car responds to steering movement instantly and the emergency lane change on highway is absolutely amazing. One thing I don’t like very much is the overly progressive nature of the spring. Contrary to lot of people’s claims that the progressive springs one installed are not progressive anymore… this setup feels like it. As I explained in another thread:
“While putting weight on each corner, it goes down fairly easily up to a point and then it gets much stiffer. Also when cornering there’s a definite change in the way the weight transfers depending on the amount of cornering force. I actually do not like it very much, since it’s a little unpredictable: while taking a long highway exit, the more you push it, the more the car goes down on the outside… so much that you think you’re gonna lose control and back off. However, if you push it even more, the car stays were it was and the Hard winding of the springs takes over (I am not talking about bottoming out). So, I can tell that (to me) there’s a 2-stage of spring stiffness and the difference is quite dramatic and may not be the best for handling-only conscious people.”
Now, ride varies so much on this setup that I think I am losing my mind. One day, it’s very nice riding and another day bouncing all over the place very harsh riding. I have pretty stiff sidewall Pirelli Pzero 225/45/17 tires, so that could also contribute, I definitely have to set the PSI below 35 though. Overall, the ride is NOT nice enough (for me) on the streets, and even on the nice riding days, the suspension just is NOT FORGIVING







, and you literally feel *EVERY *joint and bump on the streets with no exception. That’s why I am in the quest of finding a nice riding setup that handles as well as mine and another reason why I have not bought a rear swaybar to complete my setup since my setup may change completely based on my findings. 
Because of all these contradictory statements from people, tuner shops, and my own findings I take *EVERYTHING* with a grain of salt (or a few). Listening to people or tuners has cost me a lot of money and time and therefore I _ALWAYS_ recommend others to get a ride in a setup they would like to buy before spending their hard-earned money. A setup that feel comfy to me, could be harsh riding to someone else, and a car that has understeer *“for me”* based on my driving style could be more than enough for another person. 
Therefore, before I change to anything else I am gonna try as many setups as I can, here’s what I have experienced so far: 
Eibach Prokit spring/shocks, no RSB (on the street): Best riding setup I have tried. Better turn-in than stock but less than mine, more body roll than mine. Overall IMO the best upgrade setup I have seen for street driving. Wasn’t able to push the car too much.
FK HighCoilover, Neuspeed 25mm(in a parking lot): The suspension was dropped about 2”, it handled better than my old Cupkit, but hard riding and bouncy. Handling was still worse than my car.
FK Konisport coilover- no rear swaybar (on a track): this setup surprised me the MOST. The car was dropped A LOT, this guy just though lower=better, and had it setup at almost no wheel gap, the front was set at stiffest and the rear was (I think set at half-stiff). This 337 car although lowered too much handled very nice?! I tried a few corners with this car and I could get out of the apex faster than my own car (driving the same day). However, because of probably unbalanced front/rear shock stiffness it was a little unpredictable and I almost lost it at one corner when I pushed the hardest.
Shine full with no front sway (on track): Ok, this guy had this Shine setup with no front sway. On his first session he lost the rear TWICE. On the 3rd session, I asked him if I could try his car for a lap and he let me do it. The car was great, you could attack corners fast and if you had the right line you could come out of the apex very fast and faster than mine. However, if you made a mistake in corner entry and if you did anything with panic , or lift off in a corner, it was too loose and you could lose the rear-end. I am an amateur driver with a few driving lessons still perfecting my left braking skills. So, for me this car was not very fun to drive you had to be very careful in corner entry and exit. The turn-in was exactly like my setup and body roll was less at lower speeds and same at higher speed compared to mine (Neuspeed as mentioned is progressive). 
Shine Full with front swaybar (on street): I wasn’t able to push this car, but can say that it was probably easier to drive than the one with no front bar. Handling was good, but couldn’t try too many things, body roll was a little less than mine at street diving speeds (Neuspeed as mentioned is progressive), and turn-in was the same, backend under control (Shine rear swaybar). However, the ride was much harsher than mine, specially if you went over uneven bumps, the best way to explain it, is that it was jerky riding, like things on the road can make the car behave unexpectedly. 
I am not sure if I explained things fairly or clearly. As I mentioned earlier, what seems nice riding to me, or has good handling may not be the same for others. One thing I learned here is that you can get “GENERAL IMPRESSIONS” about different setups when you ask people, but you will NEVER get the full picture or the best setup by asking and have to try it yourself. Like all race drivers do NOT have the same setup in races, Michael Schumacher may set his car too loose compared to Montoya that likes his setup tight, it’s all personal preference and most of the very small details of roll-center effects, compression/rebound settings, etc… cannot be distinguished by average drivers. Most of us can distinguish a nice riding car from harsh riding and good handling from poor handling, but only a few can exploit all the potential of a car to distinguish very good handling from excellent.








So, don’t flame me if my experience doesn’t match yours.







All these are to help MYSELF get a nice handling suspension with better ride than what I currently have. My driving style doesn’t necessary match yours and what’s good for me could be horrible for you. BTW, this is *NOT* pointed at you Ceilidh, there are a lot of people who take personal offence when someone has a different experience or opinion. I hope this post answers your questions and is probably my longest post ever.










_Modified by alexb75 at 3:58 PM 2-8-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ ....... and is probably my longest post ever.....

LOL







Bring it on, Alex! I was wondering when are you going to "let go" and come out with something like the above







Anyway, wanted to say that the "progresivness" of the Neuspeed you describe (that it is soft and at certain point with speed becomes very stiff).... I think this is exactly the buffers working there! They get very progressive very fast and I am ready to bet those are the reason for your experience..... and that is, because you are already riding on them slightly right now (with your drop) and every millimeter you compress (ni the curves) the stiffer it gets in a much less linear way....


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: (pyce)*

I have not seen pyce's bar parts just yet. I do have a Shine bar and out of habit I looked closely at the engineering details and quality of fabrication. It is being built as a simple structural part for service in a fatigue application. The welds should not be a load bearing member, but they are. However, given the geometry of the parts used and the fitting constraints, the design is a legitimate attempt and still the best desigh PRINCIPLE. Just do not be supprised when they crack. 
I would try a design using the curent round bar that would dispense with the welds altogether, and machine precise holes in the bar for grade 8 1/2" bolts, and machine precise bosses that saddle the bar to hold it in place. The downside to this design is that it makes quality of installation much more critical for achieveing a bar that does not squeak (no relative motion between bolt-clamped parts). Ther is also the thought of using a retangular box section to shorten the moment on the bolts.
When I get pyce's parts, I anticipate fatigue crack initiation will be at the OD surface (as opposed to sub surface or ID surface), because that is were strain is greatest, and near the HAZ of a weld toe. Maybe the location of the initiation can suggest where not to put welds. Maybe the welds can be placed to hold the boss, but not take any fatigue load
I concur with the notion that pyce's bar failure is not due to his week or month of alternate springs. One might be able to estimate the number of fatigue cycles (using an SEM, hint, hint) over a characteristic length, and then estimate how may significant twist cycles the bar may see in any period of time. There would likely be an order of magnitude range for any estimate, but I am sure it would put the number outside a one month duration. Too, if there is significant rusting of the fracture surface, the one month scenario is out in any case. Anyway, I believe it is the front spring's stiffness which influences the relative degree of twisting experienced by the bar.

The way I drive, I'm confident I will break my bar. I think the street is more stressful for the bar than the track given that street has these driveway aprons (like where pyce broke his) and the track does not. I mysel love to turn into parking lots real quick and use the normal apron rise to get the back end to lauch off the ground going sideways. Shine breaths a sigh of relief knowing I have no warranty (bought bar used), but I'll get the second bar direct, though.



_Modified by NewbieBaby at 12:32 PM 2-9-2004_


----------



## miguel indurain (Jun 13, 1999)

*Re: (NewbieBaby)*

I'm one of the locals Pyce mentioned earlier and I checked the #2&3 welds on the RSB and sure enough they've cracked. They haven't cracked all the way through like Pyce's, but, they will be there eventually...


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (miguel indurain)*


_Quote, originally posted by *miguel indurain* »_I'm one of the locals Pyce mentioned earlier and I checked the #2&3 welds on the RSB and sure enough they've cracked. They haven't cracked all the way through like Pyce's, but, they will be there eventually...









As Pyce mentioned, maybe you guys wanna start a new thread and ask people to check their bars! Not everyone has the patience to go through 11 pages of posts to get to this point







... it's a little bit off topic too.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey Ceilidh,
......here’s what I have experienced so far: 
....... I hope this post answers your questions and is probably my longest post ever.









_Modified by alexb75 at 3:58 PM 2-8-2004_

Hello Alex,
Thank you so very much!! This is fantastic!! I really, really appreciate your spending so much time to put all this information down on paper (well, on electrons, but you know what I mean). The info is really helpful, and really surprising in a lot of ways, as some of it goes against what I've seen elsewhere during my (fairly brief) time reading the Vortex (but that's really good! I need real info, regardless of whether it fits accepted theory...). I'm going to have to go through your post pretty carefully a few more times to make sure I get everything, and I'll probably wind up coming back with some more questions for you (hopefully by next week sometime, or the week after). The irony is that I just finished roughing out a draft that I sent to Peter for comments, in which I managed to convince myself I understood the basis for the handling results people have reported thus far, but now your report here means I'll have to think things through a lot more(!) (Sigh -- I wish there were reliable published figures for spring, bar, and installed wheel rates, as well as for CG heights & suspension geometries -- it'd be nice to build a numerical model and test out predictions, rather than trying to work backwards from reported experiences...) Anyway, your reported experiences are just great -- exactly what I need -- and they're a great benefit for everyone following along on this thread. Thank you very much again, and hope your semester is going smoothly -- cheers!
- Ceilidh
P.S. -- if your grad school behaves anything at all like mine used to, please always remind yourself: unlike the profs, when this is all over, you will have a real life.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hello Alex,
Thank you so very much!! This is fantastic!! I really, really appreciate your spending so much time to put all this information down on paper (well, on electrons, but you know what I mean). The info is really helpful, and really surprising in a lot of ways, as some of it goes against what I've seen elsewhere during my (fairly brief) time reading the Vortex (but that's really good! I need real info, regardless of whether it fits accepted theory...). I'm going to have to go through your post pretty carefully a few more times to make sure I get everything, and I'll probably wind up coming back with some more questions for you (hopefully by next week sometime, or the week after). The irony is that I just finished roughing out a draft that I sent to Peter for comments, in which I managed to convince myself I understood the basis for the handling results people have reported thus far, but now your report here means I'll have to think things through a lot more(!) (Sigh -- I wish there were reliable published figures for spring, bar, and installed wheel rates, as well as for CG heights & suspension geometries -- it'd be nice to build a numerical model and test out predictions, rather than trying to work backwards from reported experiences...) Anyway, your reported experiences are just great -- exactly what I need -- and they're a great benefit for everyone following along on this thread. Thank you very much again, and hope your semester is going smoothly -- cheers!
- Ceilidh
P.S. -- if your grad school behaves anything at all like mine used to, please always remind yourself: unlike the profs, when this is all over, you will have a real life.









Just finished submitting two assignment (had to be done by 11:59 PST)... spare time again.
Hey Ceilidh, no worries and I hope my experiences can help. Your theory explanation has helped me quite a bit and I appreciate all your efforts to make sense of all this jungle of incomplete information. However, *PLEASE* do not count all that much on my impressions since I am relatively new to this suspension setup thing and fairly amature 27 year old driver. All I mentioned is how it feels to an average driver, some more experienced drivers or race drivers may be able to push those cars to limits beyond my imagination. 
Also, I've had tried some other setups as well but not to the extent to write anything about (like just got a ride in one). Something that I have experienced consistently is that cars that were lowered more than 1.5-2.00" generally didn't handle as well as non-lowered cars, where you couldn't say that for cars upto 1.5" lowering?!








The exeption was that FK Konigsport at about 3.00" lowering which really made me go WOW







, but that could be because of a very stiff shock setting (Koni inserts set at stiffest).
PS. When I mentioned that I have no swaybar, I mean no rear swaybar!


----------



## NewbieBaby (Nov 29, 2001)

*Re: (miguel indurain)*

I can endorse a second thread on the topic of rear bar cracking, but it would be nice if all the relevant current discussion be brought there also.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (NewbieBaby)*

Winston, I can't believe I have just received a 20 pages document with an amazing explanation-wrap-up-theory-real-life-experience combined all together! Man, I thought you went way over the length to help us here, but these 20 pages are beyond what I could have expected for lifetime on vortex







I have no words...... anyway, I hope to find the time and write back some info on the blank spaces, so you can complete the work in the next few months...... I am simply amazed!
NewbieBaby and Miguel, let's start a new topic about those bars and keep this here cleaner..... I will contact you via IM and see how we do it nicely....
Oldman, I and everybody else would very much appreciate to hear what is your word on the Shine 180 lb rears, now that you have put some miles on them. Your feelings are specially important to me as I think we may have quiet similar "need" for comfort, etc....
Everybody - Had been thinking of writing some of the findings on the Koni's adjustability, but just when was about to write those things and the bar broke, so it took away the attention..... but back to Koni's rebound: For the following description took some time as I wanted to make sure I am not dreaming, but I think now is time to say it as it is quiet well confirmed for me. So, here are few more things I found may be interesting for future Koni owners:
When adjusting the rears, I am finding out (and if someone else had different experience, please say so!) that on soft springs (like Stock Rears, 337 Rears, H&R OE Rears) if we go up with the rebound too much, the spring has no time/no strength to expand fast enough and on certain bad roads the rear starts literally taking off (in small amount, of course) and here is how I could try to describe it - the tire goes up (due to the mini-bump) but does not come back (down) fast enough once the highest point of the bump is reached (due to the stiff rebound) and the tire takes off and after a portion of a second lands together with the car, instead of the tire expanding to follow the downhill of the bump and not losing contact with the road...... So, it may become annoying on bumpy roads with small but frequent bumps. It sounds (in the car) like if you are driving down on mini stairs. You hear how the tire lands all the time on the surface after a fast-accelerating-up small bump. Hope this explanation make sense, not sure I managed to "visualize" it well. If not clear, I will make a small drawing later. Anyway, this occurs if going at and above 25% rebound on the rear, with the above described springs. Guess stronger spring will have more room to play before this occurs. For the front (Shine 225 lb) this happens when going at or above 50% rebound. So, for other Koni owners who are yet to start fooling around with their rebound, I dare to suggest if relatively soft springs are used - to start with 25% rebound on the rear and go down from there if needed, but for comfort issues there is almost no point going up. Again, this is when stock or near-stock springs are used. For the front it is up to you to find out the best setting, as those are easily adjusted. Hope this helps some as initial guidance for street use.....


----------



## oldmanTDI (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

the RSB makes up the biggest difference both in performance and in ride, The shine 180 springs, add even more stability and I can really feel the front working, while the rear stays planted. The problem now is the wife complains about my car, I mean every time she gets into it. 
I'm running spacers in the front VR6 springs, shine 180 rear springs, shine bar.
It may come very soon to the point that I have to go back to my stock springs with spacers, and no bar. The ride is not worth the few times I push it along the back roads. now if I was younger with no family I'd feel different to be sure. Really the VR6 front springs, rear springs with spacers solves 90% of what was wrong IMO with the VW suspension and it does it with NO impact on the stock ride. I'm not sure the 10% gain in performance with my street tires is worth the degration of my ride. 
Sure if I was running pole s03 and 90% of the time did not have a car with wife and / or kids, the Shine is the way to go. But I have conti touring tires (not bad) and I got the family. Sheer lazyiness keeps me from swapping springs and yanking the rear bar, and yanking the front spaceers.
So to sum it up for me VR6 front, spacers OEM rear, no sway bar is the perfect solution and cheap one too. Now I got all these spare parts, maybe in a few years when my car becomes a beater, I'll toss them back in. 
Anybody want to trade a new NS rear sway bar for a "new" shine bar. or a 337 rear beam for my beam + my bar.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_When adjusting the rears, I am finding out (and if someone else had different experience, please say so!) that on soft springs (like Stock Rears, 337 Rears, H&R OE Rears) if we go up with the rebound too much, the spring has no time/no strength to expand fast enough and on certain bad roads the rear starts literally taking off (in small amount, of course) and here is how I could try to describe it - the tire goes up (due to the mini-bump) but does not come back (down) fast enough once the highest point of the bump is reached (due to the stiff rebound) and the tire takes off and after a portion of a second lands together with the car, instead of the tire expanding to follow the downhill of the bump and not losing contact with the road...... So, it may become annoying on bumpy roads with small but frequent bumps. It sounds (in the car) like if you are driving down on mini stairs. You hear how the tire lands all the time on the surface after a fast-accelerating-up small bump. Hope this explanation make sense, not sure I managed to "visualize" it well. If not clear, I will make a small drawing later. Anyway, this occurs if going at and above 25% rebound on the rear, with the above described springs. Guess stronger spring will have more room to play before this occurs. For the front (Shine 225 lb) this happens when going at or above 50% rebound. So, for other Koni owners who are yet to start fooling around with their rebound, I dare to suggest if relatively soft springs are used - to start with 25% rebound on the rear and go down from there if needed, but for comfort issues there is almost no point going up. Again, this is when stock or near-stock springs are used. For the front it is up to you to find out the best setting, as those are easily adjusted. Hope this helps some as initial guidance for street use.....

What happens when you are at the softest or less than 25%? Don't you get a bouncy ride? Specially in the front since your rear springs are probably too soft for anything above softest.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
When adjusting the rears, I am finding out (and if someone else had different experience, please say so!) that on soft springs (like Stock Rears, 337 Rears, H&R OE Rears) if we go up with the rebound too much, the spring has no time/no strength to expand fast enough and on certain bad roads the rear starts literally taking off ..... Anyway, this occurs if going at and above 25% rebound on the rear, with the above described springs. Guess stronger spring will have more room to play before this occurs. For the front (Shine 225 lb) this happens when going at or above 50% rebound. .....

Hi Peter,
No time to write much, so please excuse the hurried post, but you've just given an excellent description of how a suspension "jacks down" when rebound damping is too high. As you point out, it's more likely to happen with soft springs, light sprung weight, and soft compression damping, and it sets the limit to how stiff one can set the rebound. On my GTI I was just starting to get a suggestion of it at 25%, but for some reason it wasn't quite as bad as that setting seems to have been for you (could the stock Jetta springs be softer than the GTI 1.8T's?). Anyway, thanks for describing it, and for identifying the rebound limits for everyone in the community. All the best!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, what happens (when had the bar in, now I do not know yet) is that you get very comfortable ride at anything below 25% stiff! The only issue is that the softer you go on the rear, the more the car leans when turning in. It basically feels more like stock leaning, but it is not really that bad. In the way I see it (and I may be wrong, but the few springs I tried showed me this) the stiffer the spring, the more rebound you need to fight the bounciness, but the problem is that stiff spring already means less comfort and add more rebound to that - even less comfort. Let's do not get fooled here, people love to talk bout matched springs and shocks, but let;s do not expect miracles..... I mean, if you have stiff spring, you "may" achieve some considerably good comfort level with matching a shock (different sets of coilovers are testimonial) but you will never have "soft" ride! I mean, people love to come here and say that their 400 lb "matched" coilover ride softer than stock, but I personally think this is complete BS....... Again, YES, some of them can have good ride quality, but good is relative to what a 400 lb spring can give, not good in terms of matching a stock ride quality! I mean, if you get three-four different coilovers and all of them are with 400 lb spring, then perhaps one of them would be the best and would have "better" ride than the other two, but this does not mean that it will ever match what a soft stock spring can offer. I would like to borrow here an example that a friend of mine gave me some time ago - He said: Imagine having your 100 lb spring and hit a piece of block that is 1 inch tall...what happens? the spring compresses one inch (let's assume time and speed have no influence here) and transfers a sort of "punch" to the car with about 100 lb force. So, the relation between the body's weight and the 100 lb "punch" is let's say 600 lb per rear corner divided by 100 lb punch = 1/6 ...... Now, you hit the same block on 1" with 400 lb spring. What happens? There is now 400 lb punch tat hits the car from the bottom, so we have 4/6 ratio now. The point is, no matter what, no matter what shocks you are using, the 400 punch is always going to feel much more uncomfortable than the 100 punch! So, I think would be safe to assume once and forever that a stiffer spring will always be more uncomfortable and very little can be done for the ride quality to be improved dramatically with just shocks, no matter how "matched" they are. If someone thinks I am wrong, post please.......
At this point my approach is - set the comfort level via springs first, leave yourself about 10-15% tolerances and only then eventually try to play with the rebound (or more expansive shocks that offer rebound and compression changes) and try to find eventually the sweet spot where you will get slightly better comfort (matter of frequencies for specific roads and speeds) or the other sweet spot where the rebound would play the best for you driving style or slalom design and basically leave it there. That would probably be the best handling car for the given comfort that you could live with long term. But again, this is what I think today.... tomorrow I may learn more and change mind








Oldman, very glad you decided to share your experience and also glad to hear your thoughts about Shine 180 Rears! Thanks a lot! I t was very important (at least to me) that you tried the Shine rears with the Bar and tell the story from your SOP. Thanks! I am now more than sure I am not dreaming here.....
EDIT - Just saw Ceilidh posted while I was typing this, so to answer shortly and not waste another post..... I think the Jetta Rears are the stiffest rear (from golf vs Jetta) and the difference you report may be simply due to how bad the streets are and how much opportunity you have to jump over how big bumps, etc..... At 25% I was very happy and this is probably where I am going to be for life (when I try it without the bar) the thing is on really bad roads to me the 25% is the limit! On the so-so roads, I guess even 50% could be OK..... Guess I really have ot go out and take a picture of where I drive










_Modified by pyce at 5:22 PM 2-9-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

So pyce, you're sayin that you don't get bounciness even at softest setting? Could u please try that for the front and see if it affects the bounciness. I imagine that with Shine front springs and Koni softest, it would be underdamped and probably bouncy, but I could be wrong. 
I have been in a couple of coilovers and can tell you that they are noticably firmer than stock but much better riding than my own setup per say! The way I can describe is that they seem to be matched so perfectly that the spring compression gets controlled very nicely with the shocks and the rebound is also under control in a sense that gives the car very balanced ride. It's not jurky or bouncy at all. BTW, some of those coilovers at lower heights get less comfortable so they also have a sweet spot and one has to figure out at what height it ride/handles the best. 
I am going to HPA motorsport to see if I can try their KW setups, have heard a lot of good things about them and you can order them not to go too low (+1.00,-1.00) so that could be another option out there. Will report how was the ride/handling if I get a chance to try them.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, the Front Shine - Rear Stock (with and without bar) is one nice setup in terms of comfort! I really do not know the exact spring rate of our stock rears, but it is very, very forgiving on rebound settings! The front Shine is less forgiving, BUT a lot less comfort feel comes from the front, so even when I go to 50% stiff in the front, I do not complain about ride quality as the rear is nice and soft. However, I found a very nice, smooth and relaxed feel when the front Shine is set to about 25% stiff. I can drive like this all day long around South of Market in San Francisco (







did I just say that!) and not only not feeling pain, but almost enjoying the ride. Locals know that area and it is not pretty! I may go tonight and do the rears at 25% left and 12.5% right and see what they give with no bar, but boy, do I have great freaking comfort with he setup right now! I really never thought comfort will be that important for me one day.....but the days came and no Shine rear anymore for me. The extreme I cold ever go would be to put back some sort of rear bar, but I am getting so nicely used to the no-bar situation now, I may as well keep it like this. I really do not know how to explain this one, but I just like the way the whole thing is with just no bar and only Shine Front. The thing is still MUCH better than stock, and I know that because last night borrowed a full stock Jetta from a friend and went for a drive and that thing is scary understeering and also rolls like I was in the Pacific in the winter. I understand many would say that the theory says soft rear and stiff front is a no-no but I can assure you that the Shine Front at the same time helps A LOT for the tires to get much better contact than what a stock spring provides and that translates in much less understeering than what a stocker gives....... I mean, you guys know how a stocker seats almost completely on the poor outer front wheel when curving hard and how that poor wheel has no other chance but to slide like Christi Yamaguchi because the camber gets wrong and the weight is too much....... With the Shine front at least the car remains much flatter (in the front) and the tires scream much less (than stock) and the break-lose speed is very considerably higher too. The important part is that the car is fun to drive and it is comfortable







The whole reason I came here was because I was hoping that there is some magic somewhere, somehow that will make my car handle like dream and be very comfortable, but I am realizing this is not possible (little bit late, but better than never, no?)..... so, Oldman's post above is very well put - are we willing to sacrifice much comfort for potentially being little bit faster? And I said potentially because most of the time we are not any near the full capacity of our suspension upgrades...meanwhile, the poor ride quality is always there, 100%, all the time! Apart of the fact that I do enjoy more the whole driving experience now, because I am back in charge to actually drive the car, which means more thinking, more working with the steering wheel, more planning, more everything..... because before the thing was so much on rails and therefore I had to go beyond what we should do on the streets as to have some fun and that is stupid. Who knows, I may actually go full stock with Konis all around as to have even more fun at low speeds and the ultimate comfort as well. This way I can actually start doing Auto-X in a stock class and have a little bit more chance to compete and have fun too, while can do my daily 100 miles on the crap roads here in full comfort and enjoy driving again........ So, here is what I would like to say to the newer people here (if anyone actually still follows these endless posts







)...You guys with the stock cars are lucky to have not done anything yet! Starting from stock basic is just great as you have a great chance to do it right the first time and to do it slowly at steps and understand more about what gives what and most of all - what is really important to you! Alex here always gives the greatest possible advise - go try different cars, different setups, etc and take the time and find what really works for you. The more I am fooling around - the more I realize that the Driver is much more than what I thought and the suspension is much less that what I thought..... Do not get me wrong, a better suspension will always make difference (everything else being equal) but a better drive (and we all can become if we want!) will make a hell lot more difference. I simply guess majority of us move TOO FAST towards suspension upgrades, without actually knowing what the basic (stock) package can fully offer! Many of us are trying to compensate the lack of skills with "better" suspension setup, but that brings us to live with many compromises (like ride quality for example) even if we do not have the guts to admit most of the time. I guess the real right advise to all newcomers (and I have no problem to include myself in there) is that we have to learn 100% what our cars can do the way they came from the factory and ONLY THEN if we are not satisfied - we should proceed with upgrading slowly, step by step...... Yeah, I guess I will eventually end up with some sort of VW stock springs (maybe Oldman's combo) and Koni all around and just concentrate on how to get the maximum of that setup. Guess 2004 will be few driving schools and few auto-x stock class events and only then we will see where we are........ hope this post makes some sense


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey Ceilidh,
....I have Bilstein Sport + Neuspeed Sport (which is the same spring rate as Sofsport with 1" more lowering), and right now no swaybar....I am still not sure if the roll-center affects handling as much as it's been talked about. I have 2 fingers gap front and a little less in the rear, the car is completely balanced (same height front/rear). 
I first......got H&R cupkit, which dropped the car 2”, the setup was fairly soft compared to my current suspension. After ... I removed the suspension and went back to stock (cost me $200)







. I immediately regretted it and got _*“VERY SUSPICIOUS”*_of Shine claims and others on these threads that the stock suspension outperforms lowered suspensions. 
...H&R cupkit, although offered better handling than stock but still wasn’t good enough for my track days, I also had some front swaybar rubbing, and a bouncy ride. So, decided to get another setup.
....After getting Neuspeed sport + Neuspeed valved Bilstein Sport… I immediately felt a great improvement over stock and my previous H&R cupkit. The car was finally could be called on rails (still no swaybar)....One thing I don’t like very much is the overly progressive nature of the spring. Contrary to lot of people’s claims that the progressive springs one installed are not progressive anymore… this setup feels like it....... there’s a 2-stage of spring stiffness and the difference is quite dramatic and may not be the best for handling-only conscious people.”
Now, ride varies so much on this setup that I think I am losing my mind. One day, it’s very nice riding and another day bouncing all over the place very harsh riding.... Overall, the ride is NOT nice enough (for me) on the streets, and even on the nice riding days, the suspension just is NOT FORGIVING







, and you literally feel *EVERY *joint and bump on the streets with no exception....
.....before I change to anything else I am gonna try as many setups as I can, here’s what I have experienced so far: 
Eibach Prokit spring/shocks, no RSB (on the street): Best riding setup I have tried.
FK HighCoilover, Neuspeed 25mm(in a parking lot): The suspension was dropped about 2”, it handled better than my old Cupkit, but hard riding and bouncy. Handling was still worse than my car.
FK Konisport coilover- no rear swaybar (on a track)
Shine full with no front sway (on track)
Shine Full with front swaybar (on street): ...body roll was a little less than mine at street diving speeds (Neuspeed as mentioned is progressive), and turn-in was the same, backend under control (Shine rear swaybar). However, the ride was much harsher than mine, specially if you went over uneven bumps, the best way to explain it, is that it was jerky riding, like things on the road can make the car behave unexpectedly. 
.... I hope this post answers your questions and is probably my longest post ever.









_Modified by alexb75 at 3:58 PM 2-8-2004_

Follow-up questions for Alexb75:
Hello Alex -- hope your semester is going well!
Sorry to take so long to send you the followup questions, but whenever you have the time, I'd appreciate hearing your answers:
1) Do you know how much your car has dropped from stock, with your current Neuspeed Sports? (e.g., what were the fender gaps before you dropped it?)
2) When you say the Eibach spring/shock set was the best riding setup you've tried, do you mean it rode better than stock, or that it was the best-riding non-stock setup? And do you know who makes the shocks in that kit, and whether they're twin-tube or monotube?
3) Did your car ever have a stock spring/ Bilstein shock combo? If so, may I ask how was it? The claims I've read on the Vortex have been that stock springs/bars + Bilstein (or Koni) handle and ride better than extreme lowered setups: did you find that not to be the case, or were you comparing the H&R Cupkit to pure stock?
4) Regarding the progressive springing: could you please confirm that you've cut down the rear bump stops/ elastomeric springs, so that the progressiveness can only be coming from the coil springs? Or is it possible that the long stock bumpstop (coupled to the lowered rear) is contributing to the stiffening (and perhaps to your bumpy ride)?
5) Finally, have you ever ridden in, or driven, a Shine car that did *not* have the Shine rear bar? And if so, how did it ride?
Thanks a lot, Alex! Sorry for the questions: your original post was very clear and complete, and I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting anything before I try to incorporate your findings into the (extremely tenuous and qualitative!) model. Take your time on answering, please, and I look forward to hearing your reply.
Cheers! - W
P.S. -- if you'll permit a blind conjecture: if you're combining the tall stock rear bumpstops/ elastomeric springs with a lowered sport spring and Bilsteins, then the results that Peter has been finding would suggest the following explanation for your rough ride:
A) Your feeling every crack, joint and imperfection in the road is perhaps coming from your pairing a stiff 45-section tire with "quick-acting" high pressure monotubes: the tire sidewalls are passing small-scale road imperfections straight up to the suspension, and the quick-acting Bilsteins then transfer those imperfections straight up into the chassis. As you yourself have conjectured, switching to Koni twin-tubes might help reduce this ever-present, small-scale "busyness" or "impact harshness".
B) The bigger, seemingly random rough ride (which you say comes and goes on different days) *might* be due to the rear bump rubber. [Note: if you've already cut down the bumpstop, what follows cannot apply at all!!] If your lowered rear suspension normally rests a small distance above the bumpstop, then normal bumps are absorbed by the spring, and the ride (though busy & small-scale harsh because of the Bilsteins) is overall not bad. But if the shocks are a bit strong for the springs, then when you hit a series of bumps, the car jacks down (because of the strong rebound damping) until it's sitting on the stops, at which point the ride gets extremely firm & "bouncy".
Could that explain your inconsistent ride? Obviously if you've cut down the bumpstop, then the above is all nonsense. But if the stock bumpstop is still there, one thing to check might be to see whether the ride noticeably worsens when you drive over a long series of bumps at speed (which, if the rebound is overly strong, will jack the car down onto the stops). Please try it sometime and do let us all know if there's any correlation (it'd kind of be surprising if there were, as one would think the Bilsteins would be designed for a spring like the Neuspeed Sports, but it might be easy enough to check...).








Anyway, just thinking out loud, so to speak -- have a good week!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Follow-up questions for Alexb75:
1) Do you know how much your car has dropped from stock, with your current Neuspeed Sports? (e.g., what were the fender gaps before you dropped it?)


My car is approximately lowered 1.4" all around. I cannot be more accurate, since I didn't do an accurate before/after measurement, but I measured it along side someone else's GTI with same wheels/tires. There's a little more than 2 fingers gap in the front and two fingers rear. 

_Quote »_
2) When you say the Eibach spring/shock set was the best riding setup you've tried, do you mean it rode better than stock, or that it was the best-riding non-stock setup? And do you know who makes the shocks in that kit, and whether they're twin-tube or monotube?


I mean it is the best ride non-stock. The shocks are made by Eibach (or labeled) and is a perfect match for their prokit springs and I am pretty sure they are twin-tube. The provide a fairly comfy ride compared to all other aftermarket setups I have tried, but not as comfy as stock.

_Quote »_
3) Did your car ever have a stock spring/ Bilstein shock combo? If so, may I ask how was it? The claims I've read on the Vortex have been that stock springs/bars + Bilstein (or Koni) handle and ride better than extreme lowered setups: did you find that not to be the case, or were you comparing the H&R Cupkit to pure stock?


No! I didn't try Bilstein+stock springs since I believe stock springs would be totally overdamped by Bilstein. I compared the handling to H&R cupkit and stock (all around).

_Quote »_
4) Regarding the progressive springing: could you please confirm that you've cut down the rear bump stops/ elastomeric springs, so that the progressiveness can only be coming from the coil springs? Or is it possible that the long stock bumpstop (coupled to the lowered rear) is contributing to the stiffening (and perhaps to your bumpy ride)?


I have not touched the bumpstops yet. So, it could come from it I guess. However, I can say that front feels the same too. 

_Quote »_
5) Finally, have you ever ridden in, or driven, a Shine car that did *not* have the Shine rear bar? And if so, how did it ride?


No! All Shine cars I have tried had the rear bar installed. 

_Quote »_
Thanks a lot, Alex! Sorry for the questions: your original post was very clear and complete, and I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting anything before I try to incorporate your findings into the (extremely tenuous and qualitative!) model. Take your time on answering, please, and I look forward to hearing your reply.


No problem man, I am glad to reply to all ur questions and hopefully can help paint a better picture of the whole situation.

_Quote »_
P.S. -- if you'll permit a blind conjecture: if you're combining the tall stock rear bumpstops/ elastomeric springs with a lowered sport spring and Bilsteins, then the results that Peter has been finding would suggest the following explanation for your rough ride:
A) Your feeling every crack, joint and imperfection in the road is perhaps coming from your pairing a stiff 45-section tire with "quick-acting" high pressure monotubes: the tire sidewalls are passing small-scale road imperfections straight up to the suspension, and the quick-acting Bilsteins then transfer those imperfections straight up into the chassis. As you yourself have conjectured, switching to Koni twin-tubes might help reduce this ever-present, small-scale "busyness" or "impact harshness".


I absolutely agree. I have the stiffest of all things combining to my ride. As said earlier, first step for me is to do the bumpstops and then may try another set of shocks, or to completely change the setup.

_Quote »_
B) The bigger, seemingly random rough ride (which you say comes and goes on different days) *might* be due to the rear bump rubber. [Note: if you've already cut down the bumpstop, what follows cannot apply at all!!] If your lowered rear suspension normally rests a small distance above the bumpstop, then normal bumps are absorbed by the spring, and the ride (though busy & small-scale harsh because of the Bilsteins) is overall not bad. But if the shocks are a bit strong for the springs, then when you hit a series of bumps, the car jacks down (because of the strong rebound damping) until it's sitting on the stops, at which point the ride gets extremely firm & "bouncy".
Could that explain your inconsistent ride? Obviously if you've cut down the bumpstop, then the above is all nonsense. But if the stock bumpstop is still there, one thing to check might be to see whether the ride noticeably worsens when you drive over a long series of bumps at speed (which, if the rebound is overly strong, will jack the car down onto the stops). Please try it sometime and do let us all know if there's any correlation (it'd kind of be surprising if there were, as one would think the Bilsteins would be designed for a spring like the Neuspeed Sports, but it might be easy enough to check...).










Aha! that's a very good point, can probably explain the situation then! I will have to find some time to get the bumpstops done and report what happens. For sure will do that. Thanks a lot man, u r awesome http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Well, it had been a week and I have also done few things in the garage..... First of all, put the Koni Rear on 25% stiff and immediately realized the whole game with the rear has to be repeated one more time as the Shine bar was giving a lot more even to the shocks setitng! Winston, I know understand where our mismatching came from, it is right from that massive bar! Here is what I wrote on page 11:

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ .....When adjusting the rears, I am finding out (and if someone else had different experience, please say so!) that on soft springs (like Stock Rears, 337 Rears, H&R OE Rears) if we go up with the rebound too much, the spring has no time/no strength to expand fast enough and on certain bad roads the rear starts literally taking off...... Anyway, this occurs if going at and above 25% rebound on the rear, with the above described springs......

And here was your answer:

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ ......description of how a suspension "jacks down" when rebound damping is too high. As you point out, it's more likely to happen with soft springs, light sprung weight, and soft compression damping, and it sets the limit to how stiff one can set the rebound. On my GTI I was just starting to get a suggestion of it at 25%, but for some reason it wasn't quite as bad as that setting seems to have been for you (could the stock Jetta springs be softer than the GTI 1.8T's?). Anyway, thanks for describing it, and for identifying the rebound limits for everyone in the community. - W

Now, without the Shine Bar, I can go to 25% on the rear and all of the above does NOT happen anymore! the so called "jacks down" does not longer exist on 25% rebound. Even more, the rear is so comfortable, that I am considering going to 40-50% rebound. Also, it feels like the 25% rear rebound now is somewhat "stronger" than before when I had the bar. It is more of an "instant", with no delay, pull of the inner rear corner towards the ground. Mind you, I am trying to describe a feeling, we know there is no actually pull towards the ground but it feels that way as the usual pull towards the sky (LOL) is even less present. The feeling is, the softer the rear becomes, the more sensitive in rebound settings it is, but somehow the comfort does not go south as bad as before (when changing rebound)......
Also, tried the front with full 100% stiff and was impressed by two things:
1. Of course, the front is as flat as I could not even imagine! Really, Shine 225 front with Koni on Full stiff is spectacular feel! Driving in a slalom on the parking lot made me feel that in this configuration it is flatter then when I had full kit with rear bar and rear springs! I know sounds idiotic to say so, but I feel this way. It is incredibly flat. I am one more time impressed what shocks can do, particularly, what rebound can do...... I can only imagine (or maybe can't) what full stiff all around would give. Guess we have to try that one too. The sad part is that takes me so much time to adjust the rears, it is tiring after awhile.....
2. The ride quality did not suffer as much as I was expecting. Yes, it is firm, very firm, but not even minimum of bounciness, nothing! It may not be the setting to use for daily driver, but it is absolutely not punishing nor uncomfortable. Just the front doors rattle little bit more, but they had always been that way since new and I can live with it.......
It is really incredible what rebound can do! Anyway, do not want to send the wrong message that the rebound is substitution for anti-roll bar...... it is only in small portion, during the initial turn in or while transiting, etc, but an anti-roll bar behind there is absolutely the best bang-for-the-buck. The rebound does a lot, but the Shine bar was doing a lot more than that.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Hello Peter,
Glad to hear the front Konis make such a difference(!)
Have you had a chance to do the wet-parking-lot-test? I'd be curious to hear how sudden (or gradual) is the terminal understeer with those stiff front springs (I understand that below the limit, the understeer is much less than stock, correct?). No hurry of course







, but just checking.
On a totally different note, do you think we should ever post that guide? Or do you think there are just 5 of us reading this thread these days? I still have to figure out how Alexb75's experiences fit in, and will send you a revised draft in a few weeks. Til then, all the best, and hope the experiments continue to bear fruit!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Hey Winst! Yes, it had been raining for few days and I actually did the parking virtual slalom (no cones) and believe it or not the Shine front (even with soft rears) is much better than the pure stock. The problem is, thought, the stocker I am comparing to has stock shocks AND stock 195-65-15 tires, so I do not know how much this helps my setup to be on top. 
Now that some time had passed and I have done some driving on my favorite roads, where every curve is well known, I think it will be very safe to say that the best combination so far for my taste-my roads-my style is by far the Shine 225 Front - Stock Rear - Koni Yellow - *Shine RSB*..... Put the bar in bold as it was really the most important piece from all the sequential changes we made. Of course, I have never replaced the front Shine springs, so who knows, those may be as important as the bar, but I am "afraid" of replacing them as my feel (from driving stockers) is that they are absolute "must" in any setup-exploration to begin with.
I am so much looking forward to hear your words when you install the Front Koni! Secretly hoping you will do so ASAP








P.S: For the final article you are writing, I would wait till you put the Front Koni and wait also for me to put the Shine rears back with no bar and see.....


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_On a totally different note, do you think we should ever post that guide? Or do you think there are just 5 of us reading this thread these days?

If you include me, there has got to be at least 6 of us following along








Personally, I'd love to see this tome http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*

Chris, that stuff he wrote MUST be shared with everyone and most of all, would be nice that everyone gives their input as to modify it in a way that makes sense ....... I realize it sounds like hiding it, but it is not the case. It is great start with theory and principles, but the final part is still missing, the part that summarize the results of these experiments we tried to do. So, if he posts it now, it will be so incomplete and may not make sense at all. We have to find time to just complete it, then I guess he will post it and then everyone (I hope) will have the patience to read more than 20 pages (word format, not vortex format!







) and then he may modify it according to your and others inputs and then we can put it in a website somewhere (or perhaps some form of FAQ) as some sort of guide for more beginners than us in regards of what we have found out in trying to play with street-able suspension setups. It is truly remarkable he spend all this time to write that and the posts here.......


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

No hurry! I'm sure it will be extremely well written, and a great addition to the perminent suspension forum archives.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_I still have to figure out how Alexb75's experiences fit in, and will send you a revised draft in a few weeks. Til then, all the best, and hope the experiments continue to bear fruit!
- W

Hi Winst,
If you need more info or clarification on my experiences, PM me and I will give u my email to contact me directly.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Now, without the Shine Bar, I can go to 25% on the rear and all of the above does NOT happen anymore! the so called "jacks down" does not longer exist on 25% rebound. Even more, the rear is so comfortable, that I am considering going to 40-50% rebound. Also, it feels like the 25% rear rebound now is somewhat "stronger" than before when I had the bar. It is more of an "instant", with no delay, pull of the inner rear corner towards the ground. Mind you, I am trying to describe a feeling, we know there is no actually pull towards the ground but it feels that way as the usual pull towards the sky (LOL) is even less present. The feeling is, the softer the rear becomes, the more sensitive in rebound settings it is, but somehow the comfort does not go south as bad as before (when changing rebound)......
....

RETRACTION (Ceilidh):
Hello Peter, Hello Alex -- back again for a short bit








Many a beautiful theory has been killed by solitary little hard fact, and I'm thinking that I might have been wrong about the "jacking down" effect from stiff shocks (if I was, sorry about that). The initial theory at least seemed to make sense: Peter's description of maddening bump/pattering with stiff rear Konis (that seemed to get worse the longer the stretch of bad pavement) was consistent with a suspension jacking itself down onto the bumpstops; and then Alexb75's intermittently poor ride with Neuspeed Sport springs/ Bilsteins/ full-length bumpstops also seemed to fit the pattern. But now I'm not so sure. Maybe Alexb75's ride problems might still be a jacking-down effect (Alex, have you been able to confirm whether your ride worsens over a long expanse of bad pavement, or is the ride bad from the get go?), but (Peter) Pyce's experience no longer seems to fit:
* To wit: when Peter had comfort problems with excessive rebound, his stiff rear antiroll bar was still on the car; but when he removed the bar, he found he could comfortably use still higher rebound settings. Now, jacking problems usually get worse, not better, when you reduce the spring rate (the car jacks down when the springs aren't strong enough to rebound fully over a series of bumps), but here Peter kept the same 2-wheel rate (by retaining the same springs) while decreasing the 1-wheel rate (by removing the bar); if the problem was jacking, the bar removal should thus have left things either worse or the same, not better. Hence Peter's initial problem (a sensation that the wheels weren't rebounding after bumps, but were instead smacking into the face of the following bump) could not have been a result of rebound-induced jacking.
So what was the cause? I don't really know; but if I had to guess, I'd resurrect OldmanTDI's longstanding argument that a hefty rear bar on soft springs can act as a sort of "Solid Axle Conversion Kit", one that reduces the independent action of the wheels (note that Peter was pairing a stiff Shine bar -- originally designed to complement 200lb/in or 180lb/in springs -- with stock (125lb/in??) rear springs; the ratio of bar to spring was thus quite a bit higher than that of the Shine RSS). Ordinarily I would have thought the problem would have been worse with light damping -- as weak shocks would have trouble controlling the stiff 1-wheel rates that arise from an overly big bar -- but perhaps here the stiff damping served simply to firm up (and hence worsen) an already poorly-controlled ride; in this scenario, removal of the bar improved the ride by letting the rear wheels move semi-independently again. With the ride thus fundamentally improved, perhaps Peter can now tolerate much firmer damping before discomfort. (?)
To give a physical example of how a big bar might worsen the ride in the way that Peter described (with the wheels not rebounding after a bump, but smacking into the face of the next bump beyond): imagine the rear wheels encountering a diagonal ridge in the road, such that the left wheel crests the ridge before the right one does. As the left wheel rises and clears the crest, inertia tries to carry it further upwards (which is why unspung weight is bad), but the spring tries to force it back down -- and if the spring is strong enough, the wheel is light enough, and the (high piston-velocity rebound) damping is weak enough, the wheel will smoothly follow the back contour of the ridge, and thus be ready for the next bump. But if, while the left wheel is trying to come back down, the right wheel is still rising towards the crest of the ridge, then the antiroll bar will try to pick up the left wheel too. Since the bar is fighting the spring, the effective force of the spring (how hard it pushes the wheel down the back side of the bump) is now less than it would be if the bar were not there; with less force pushing down on the left wheel, there's a greater chance the wheel won't follow the back contour of the ridge, and will instead leave the ground (i.e., the bump "falls" faster than the wheel can follow), to smack into the rising face of the next bump the car hits. In this situation, increased rebound damping will make things even worse, as the damping further slows the rate at which the left wheel "falls", making it even more likely to leave the ground after the ridge crest. And so the ride comfort becomes pretty terrible.
Peter, would the above be at all consistent with the poor ride you felt with stock springs, a big bar, and stiff rebound damping?
As for Alexb75: Alex, I measured how high my completely stock GTI rides above the rear bumpstops, and it's about 1.7" (not very exact -- it was by flashlight on a slushy night). If your car's dropped 1.4" on your Sofsports, that would put you about 0.3" above the bumpstops at the rear. So it's conceivable that jacking down on a long series of bumps (from overly strong rebound) might bring you down onto your stops -- which would account for your intermittently poor ride comfort; but I'm not so sure about that anymore either: the hitch is that I've just reread your post, and I see that you're using Neuspeed-valved Bilsteins. As Neuspeed is a fairly good outfit, I can't see them specifying a custom shock valving that would suffer from a jacking-down problem with their own springs. So here's another possibility:
Even without jacking effects, you should be hitting the stops on even fairly small bumps. Now, as the top of the stop is pretty soft, you should find the small bumps reasonably comfortable, but things should get rapidly worse on the bigger stuff. The tickler in all this is of course your quick-acting Bilstein shocks, which will make all sharp-edged bumps (even small ones) fairly harsh; to take the Bilsteins out of the equation, you'd have to find "smooth-edged" bumps or ripples. Now, as many small bumps (at least here in Boston) are the sharp-edged effects of broken and patched pavement (plus expansion strips and the like), one might expect the following situation: when you hit broken pavement/ expansion strips/ concrete paving joints/ etc, you feel a harsh jolt from your Bilsteins, but when you hit smoother bumps (e.g., ripples in the pavement), you glide over them -- so long as they're small. But when even the smooth-edged bumps and potholes get big enough, you start to really press down on the rear bumpstops, which sends the spring rate up and firms up the ride. The bigger the bump, the firmer the effective spring rate, and hence even smooth humps and whoopdedos (which other cars go over without a fuss) start out ok and wind up crushing you into your seat. Key here, however, is that the bumpstop only comes into play when the rear springs are compressed -- not when they're extended. Thus even a really sharp-edged pothole (which lets the wheel drop -- which doesn't bring the bumpstop into play) creates a giant BANG! (those Bilsteins again), but no spine-crushing theatrics. Bottom line, your ride comfort varies wildly depending on what kind of pavement you're rolling over.
Could the above account for your varying ride comfort? If not, then we're back to "jacking" effects -- which might be testable if you find a long stretch of bumps; if the problem is jacking, then the ride should be ok at the start of the stretch, but much worse farther down.
Anyway, just some thoughts -- the two of you certainly do present some very interesting ride observations! Hope you both had a great weekend, and please have a good week!
- W
P.S. Alex -- another thought: if you're consistently rolling over onto your outside rear bumpstop while cornering, the stops are increasing your effective rear roll stiffness (which reduces your understeer). Do you feel that effect? It might be noticeable as a sort of "stiffening up" as your car takes a set, with a sensation of the front wheels "biting harder" as you really roll into a turn (with the overall roll less than stock, of course). Do you feel that? If so, you might find your roll and understeer increasing if you cut down the stop (does Neuspeed expect you to retain the rear bumpstop with their Sport springs?). Just wanted to mention the possibility....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I actually did the parking virtual slalom (no cones) and believe it or not the Shine front (even with soft rears) is much better than the pure stock...... 

Hi Peter(!),
Could you please confirm? (Just want to make sure I haven't misinterpreted your statements) Thanks a lot!
1) You've compared a completely stock Jetta to one with Shine front springs, Konis, and slightly bigger tires, and the comparison holds both on your favorite twisty roads and on a wet parking lot slalom test;
2) In all cases the Shine Front car understeers less than the stocker, despite the absence of a rear bar or stiffer rear springs;
3) The reduction in understeer occurs at all speeds, whether you're pressing the car hard or just bending moderately into a curve;
4) In addition to an outright understeer reduction, you also find (with the Shine Front car) better turn in and steering precision (though that might be partly or mostly due to the shocks)
5) With the Shine Front car, understeer still increases progressively the harder you push the car -- it's just that it increases less rapidly than it does on the stock car.
6) At the limit / breakaway, the breakaway (which occurs at the front) is still benign and progressive -- that is, it's not a sudden, savage loss of steering, and the car still responds to steering inputs.
(Note: for #6, did you ever try a wet-parking-lot "skidpad" circle or arc? It'd be nice to remove the effect of the shocks...)
If the above points are correct (especially if #6 is true in a steady-state situation, without the shock tuning coming into play), then we can check off a major starting conjecture in the guide (that tire camber trumps lateral weight transfer in the stock suspension setup), which would be fairly encouraging! Please confirm, or let me know where I've misinterpreted -- thank you!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Hey man, you are a genius. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
So it's conceivable that jacking down on a long series of bumps (from overly strong rebound) might bring you down onto your stops -- which would account for your intermittently poor ride comfort; but I'm not so sure about that anymore either: the hitch is that I've just reread your post, and I see that you're using Neuspeed-valved Bilsteins. As Neuspeed is a fairly good outfit, I can't see them specifying a custom shock valving that would suffer from a jacking-down problem with their own springs. So here's another possibility:
Even without jacking effects, you should be hitting the stops on even fairly small bumps. Now, as the top of the stop is pretty soft, you should find the small bumps reasonably comfortable, but things should get rapidly worse on the bigger stuff. The tickler in all this is of course your quick-acting Bilstein shocks, which will make all sharp-edged bumps (even small ones) fairly harsh; to take the Bilsteins out of the equation, you'd have to find "smooth-edged" bumps or ripples. Now, as many small bumps (at least here in Boston) are the sharp-edged effects of broken and patched pavement (plus expansion strips and the like), one might expect the following situation: when you hit broken pavement/ expansion strips/ concrete paving joints/ etc, you feel a harsh jolt from your Bilsteins, but when you hit smoother bumps (e.g., ripples in the pavement), you glide over them -- so long as they're small. But when even the smooth-edged bumps and potholes get big enough, you start to really press down on the rear bumpstops, which sends the spring rate up and firms up the ride. The bigger the bump, the firmer the effective spring rate, and hence even smooth humps and whoopdedos (which other cars go over without a fuss) start out ok and wind up crushing you into your seat. Key here, however, is that the bumpstop only comes into play when the rear springs are compressed -- not when they're extended. Thus even a really sharp-edged pothole (which lets the wheel drop -- which doesn't bring the bumpstop into play) creates a giant BANG! (those Bilsteins again), but no spine-crushing theatrics. Bottom line, your ride comfort varies wildly depending on what kind of pavement you're rolling over.


You are ABSOLUTELY right. Whenever I hit something with sharp edges (broken pavement) I feel it's gonna kill me, it's a HUGE BANG. If the same height of bump doesn't have a sharp edge, the impact is MUCH more bearable. But, the WORST way the car rides is when it's coming down a bump. Like if I go over a 2-inch bump, the impact of hitting it is much less than the impact of coming off it! This is particularly true for the rear (just drops off the bump). So, I usually go faster over a bump and much more careful coming off of it. 
I can also say that many times when I drive off my house, the ride is fine, but after a while it gets worse. It's also been days that it's been comfy for the whole day (as explained earlier). I can feel EVERY single bump on the road, however, as you explained the effect gets exponentially worse with the bump size. Also, it surprisingly ride MUCH better on _smaller bumps_ when you are traveling faster, for instance we have this bridge that has these expansion joints that are like an-inch apart. If I travel on them at 30 miles/hour, I feel them pretty bad, if I instead go at 40-50 it's much more comfy.
The other interesting things that has happened is that whenever my car is jacked up in the air (oil change or other thing) and the springs are free in the air... right after I get back in the car, the car rides MUCH BETTER. It could be the jacking effect you explained. The other funny thing is whenever I go to a carwash, right after my car feel much more comfortable and this is truly a mystery to me









_Quote »_
P.S. Alex -- another thought: if you're consistently rolling over onto your outside rear bumpstop while cornering, the stops are increasing your effective rear roll stiffness (which reduces your understeer). Do you feel that effect? It might be noticeable as a sort of "stiffening up" as your car takes a set, with a sensation of the front wheels "biting harder" as you really roll into a turn (with the overall roll less than stock, of course). Do you feel that? If so, you might find your roll and understeer increasing if you cut down the stop (does Neuspeed expect you to retain the rear bumpstop with their Sport springs?). Just wanted to mention the possibility....









I definitely have lesser comfort or stiffer springs/shocks after constant bumps on the road. However, I think this can also be caused by Bilstein auto-valving system that gets stiffer by each bump. Neuspeed doesn't recommend cutting, but to use the shorter bumpstop. They are mostly worried about axle hitting the exhaust with shortened bumpstop. 
I might have experienced better handling after spritied dirving. Like the first turn or two are not as easy and then the car for some reason corners better, I though that's bilstein auto-valving coming to play or could be the bumpstops as you explained.
AGAIN, AWSOME post. You are invaluable on Vortex. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Alex, my turn now ......
Winston, you da man!









_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ ........... would the above be at all consistent with the poor ride you felt with stock springs, a big bar, and stiff rebound damping?........... 

Sure it will be consistent, my friend! I guess your detailed explanation of why and how the RSB affects comfort and helps the "jacking down" is really right on the money. Check this out - 24 hours before you posted it, I decided to take out the Konis on the rear again and "up" the rebound little bit more, in an attempt to find out where (if there) is the sweet spot. But instead of trying to go up by another 1/4 turn, I went directly to 50% stiff - full turn from soft. Took her for a drive and it was not nice. Not just the rear, but the whole car felt just uncomfortable, just wrong. Drove for several miles and then felt that the ride becomes better on some surfaces, but is very uncomfy on some other type of surfaces. The interesting part was that there was no "jacking down" whatsoever! So, I guess your theory is absolutely right. Even more, there are some particular spots on specific roads where my rear before was literally taking off and landing with very uncomfortable "bang"...... now I go over the same places and it feels like they had fixed it, but they did not as I can see it is the same old road. And guess what, those particular holes are kind of under slight angle, not perfectly parallel to the direction of moving, so it fully coincides with some of your examples about how the left wheel has do go down first, but is kind of held by the massive sway bar as the right wheel is still on the upper surface..... then once the right wheel is airborne as the massive hole open below - the whole axel, both wheels, land together few inches or so later, resulting in very unpleasant "bang". So, I guess we have again theory and real life experience holding hands








But back to the rebound situation..... I was driving the car with the new 50% Rear Rebound (and it was on 50% in the front too) and few miles since departure I was quiet convinced that the 50% on the rear was very wrong move, because I really did not like the comfort. The handling was very nice, really close to where I may stop soon, but the comfort was unacceptable. But just before going back home to change it again back to 25%, I pulled of the road and decided to put the front rebound to full stiff (100%) just for fun, to see what a horrible ride would that be for the last few miles to home...... Well, here the beauty begins! Instead of getting worse, the ride got so much better, I could not believe it! Basically, the car became significantly firmer, but somehow very acceptable in comfort. Basically what happened felt like (trying to describe it here, may not be exactly like this!) the vertical movement increased the frequency (the bounciness sort of) BUT decreased somehow the length of travel - so, it felt much more comfortable! It felt like it entered some sort of very nice resonance that killed a lot of big and slow movements up and down, but promoted some shorter moves with higher velocity (of the movements). So, I decided I am not going home but keep driving and most of all, keep stopping and adjusting the front rebound. At 75% stiff on the front was Nirvana! At 50% was the worst..... then at 25% front was comfortable again, but the car start feeling "loose" in the slalom, etc. I did not go to 0% front as it was pointless anyway. So, back to 75% stiff in the front and it was great! I find it very difficult to describe the whole thing precisely, but it feels like if there was a sweet spot - we hit it with this setting! I am now big believer that some sort of matching shocks is really possible even at home and that actually it works that way. Yes, many have said it here, that matched shocks are something very important, but I guess I have never had a setup like that, so how could I know. Besides, none of the previous setups I had were in any way adjustable, so you drive what they sell you. During this drive I sure remembered some posts few pages back, when talks about the "pitch" were made. I still remember how mounting the Konis on the front solved some issues I had with the H&R OE on the rear (at that time). To think of it, I guess that spring might have been just fine and the "screwed" rebound might have been the reason it was not right on certain speeds. I just gave up too fast on that one. Should have gone 50% rear rebound right then and see if can match the front later........ Basically, the ride now reminds me so very much of the GTItravelr's H&R DB coilovers. That setup of his drove me nuts for months as I could never figure out how in the world a 400 lbF and 290 lbR (correct numbers?) can ride, yes very firm, but somehow not as uncomfortable as another set of coilovers I once had (Weitec) or as bouncy as the Full Shine on Bilsteins. His ride is very close to what I have right now - very small oscillation, pretty high frequency and it is firm, firmer than ever, but believe it or not, absolutely acceptable. One note thought, when I say "his ride is closer to mine", I mean like the type of ride frequency, not that actually his ride quality is like mine! My car is by far more comfortable than his, I am also on 16" wheel (18" his), so there is not really absolute comparison. It is just like watching TV - you play with brightness/contrast and the picture changes, but the movie is the same







It is some sort of "signature" of ride characteristics that I tired to describe and it is very close to his car.......
Apart of all this, the car is really great now! It is like can't get any better. Very easy to drive, very predictable, yet very firm and the roll is so taken care of - it feel like I really have beefier than the stock sway bars. Even the tail made it's he first vague attempts to come around when lifting/breaking in curve! No, it is not any near the effect when I had the massive Shine bar, but it is not like before neither. The progress made this weekend made me so positive, I am even thinking to try 75% stiff on the rear and see what that gives! I guess it may cross the line and become unacceptable (regardless front settings) but at this point we really have to try it! And I also want to find out when is the "jacking down" will appear again! But I will stop here and concentrate on answering the second post...... talk to you later


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
It felt like it entered some sort of very nice resonance that killed a lot of big and slow movements up and down, but promoted some shorter moves with higher velocity (of the movements)... I am now big believer that some sort of matching shocks is really possible even at home and that actually it works that way. Yes, many have said it here, that matched shocks are something very important ...

This is precisely why I try to find the *smart* suspension designers, _try to learn from, and understand what they've done_, but ultimately trust that they've made the correct design decisions. Prepackaged, and well designed efforts, from Neuspeed, Sachs, and Mr. Shine all prove what is oft quoted - Suspension is a system, not a set of individual components, that must work well as a cohesive team of stuff if outstanding performance (comfort and handling) is to result.
Funny ... almost back to basics, isn't it?
Peter, the real fun will begin when you take your new found experience driven knowledge, and add the Shine RSB back into the mix (if you so decide).
I plan to continue to live vicariously through your experimentation


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*

Yes, Chris, back to basic







At the end will all go to the point that Dick was right one more time when he said that we can do better with our stock springs and aftermarket shocks than with many aftermarket "systems", LOL!







But hey, it is a very nice trip we are having here, steep learning curve and a lot of fun in the weekends







After all, the only way to know how deep the river is - is to jump in it








Winston, here is some more for you....

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 1) You've compared a completely stock Jetta to one with Shine front springs, Konis, and slightly bigger tires, and the comparison holds both on your favorite twisty roads and on a wet parking lot slalom test;

That is correct. The stocker has the 195-65-15 Energy tires. My car had 205-55-16 Energy tires. Comparison same day, same roads, same parking. The problem is, I really do not know how much the 205 gives on top of the 195 tire. I mean, I can't quantify how much of the gain is due to the larger tire and how much comes from the other differences in the setup (like Shocks and Front springs). I will try to find a Stock Jetta with 16" touring tires and drive again!


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 2) In all cases the Shine Front car understeers less than the stocker, despite the absence of a rear bar or stiffer rear springs;

Absolutely yes! It may be against some theory, but the difference is a lot actually! Even more, with the new 75% stiff Front and 50% stiff Rear, my car is completely transformed from stock. I do not know how to organize a comparison test, but I am thinking of taking a movie of doing a slalom with my car and the stocker, with cruise control set at certain speed, so we eliminate speed differences, etc. Perhaps done at different speeds as well. Guess that will be the best way to see what we are talking about. Guess a good project to do soon









_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 3) The reduction in understeer occurs at all speeds, whether you're pressing the car hard or just bending moderately into a curve;

It feels to me (just feel, may be wrong) that my car is much better on fast curves (higher speeds) and it is little bit less ahead on slow curves (like 90 degree junctions in the city, etc). Do not get me wrong, even in town is significant improvement over stock, but I felt like Full Shine remains kind of "quicker" around a slow and sharp corner. Meanwhile (do not shoot me here, please, I am going to say something big!) on very fast on and off ramps (not sharp, but open) I feel actually faster with the current setup than with full Shine. Let me explain before anyone shoots me, please.... I am talking the cement overpasses, on and off ramps, those things with joints and very uneven some time! The surface is not smooth at all. Here is what happens - Let's say I felt comfortable going through this long off ramp (about 270 degree but very long turn, huge radius) at about XX mph when I had Full Shine. Comfortable speed means I hit the joints and the rear kind of jumps up, but as we are pretty fast in a curve, it actually moves to the right (it is left curve). It sorts of goes in some kind of "instant oversteer", but because the tires never really take off - it is not happening anything else but just funny consistent, small, side movements that are fully controlled and predicted. You know what I am talking about. Then I increase the speed by about + 5 to 7 mph and at that point the car is getting closer to it's literal traction limits of the rear because now it starts actually moving with every joint, to a point that have to correct (slightly still) with the steering wheel in synchrony with every joint. So, here is where I stop, this is my limit as I would not dare going above on the street! ..... Fast forward to today, I go on the same place at about +15 mph and I have no rear neither front movement at all through the whole duration of the curving! I can hear I hit the joints, but this is only now a sound effect, with no effect on the car's trajectory. And this is on the same tires, same pressure, same everything. It feels like I can go even faster than that, but I just do not want to do so. Again, I am talking real street with unreal uneven surfaces, not a smooth like silk track! Do not want to send the wrong message to whoever reads here. Besides, I can't comment on how the car goes on smooth roads as I do not drive on anything like that here..........

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 4) In addition to an outright understeer reduction, you also find (with the Shine Front car) better turn in and steering precision (though that might be partly or mostly due to the shocks)

With the Konis set on 50% rear and 75% front, I find the turn-in to be great! I do understand that it may be a lot on the shocks. I do remember when having this setup on 0% stiff on the rear, the car was extremely comfortable, but not nice to drive into a curve. The very, very initial turn had always been great, but as soon as the front deviates from straight line (the first few degree of curving) - the rear was kind of trying to continue straight. Just felt like this. The few more degree (about 1/4 into the turn) and it felt like it was already fully seated in there and it was very easy to just hang in there and wait till the curve is over. Now I no longer have this effect. Even more (here someone will shoot again!) I have the feeling that the rebound of the rear inner (and the front inner) holds through the whole duration of the curve! I fully understand that it is impossible as the rebound of the inner shock helps only to slow down the weight transfer, not eliminating it like spring, and I do understand that it is very wrong to say what I said as it does not make any sense, but this is really what I feel like - basically the turn in is fantastic with the 50% rear rebound, but instead of the car slowly seating on the outer springs in the middle of the curve, it feels like the shock holds the car through the whole curve. Or at least holds the car through the apex and only then let gradually go, but by then I am also getting the car back towards straight line movement, so the worse is over....... 

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 5) With the Shine Front car, understeer still increases progressively the harder you push the car -- it's just that it increases less rapidly than it does on the stock car.

Yes, right on! So far never had any unpredictable understeer. Even better, on few occasions tried to induce it but not always got it. I have to be very, very quick with the steering wheel as to have it! Example, 90 degree curve, slightly above 30 mph, turn the wheel as fast as my hands can! It is about more than 1/4 steering wheel turn as fast as I can with both hands, no brake, no gas, steady speed, Touring tires, mind you - all I get is moderate scream from the tires, but the car does not move even an inch! ..... Well, it may move, but it must be so slightly that I can't detect it. If I am slightly smoother with the steering wheel, I can get through that corner at the same 31-32 mph (90 degree, one lane intersection) with virtually no tire sound at all! Going through the same situation with complete stocker made me slow down to 25-26 mph and the result was major tire scream, front diving and slight movement of the front towards the outside of the curve. Could have been a lot on the tires thought, as again, the stocker has 195-15 and I am on 205-16 On wet surfaces thought, is very different. On a wet parking lot, I found that the softer the rebound on the front, somehow the less understeer I have. I mean, the instant-turn-the-wheel situation shows less understeer with softer front rebound, while when on 100% stiff on the front - I get her understeer easier when instant steering occurs.

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ 6) At the limit / breakaway, the breakaway (which occurs at the front) is still benign and progressive -- that is, it's not a sudden, savage loss of steering, and the car still responds to steering inputs.(Note: for #6, did you ever try a wet-parking-lot "skidpad" circle or arc? It'd be nice to remove the effect of the shocks...)

As well, very progressive, no drama here. Not that I had so far. I think everyone somehow expects this setup to be so wrong and the car to be pure pain to drive, but from what I see, I guess that our cars are not that sensitive to few tents of variation of spring rates. Yes, we know nobody designed this "setup" and nobody matched it and even the colors are all different, as well as the stickers, but this really does not mean that it is that wrong. I guess (at this point) that the rear-to-front spring rate ratio must be quiet "forgiving" as changes in few tents do not translate in dramatic behavior. It was predicted the car will understeer more than a Full Shine and I think it does, but this absolutely doe snot mean that it is "impossible to drive" or very dangerous and unpredictable. With time I am getting more and more confident and have to say that for the spirited-driving-style-on-the-street situation this thing is as good as anything else that I tried. I will definitely loose a race on a track, where every tents counts, but for the street and daily fun use - it is not a loser at all. I think the most important part of all this experiment was that we never touched the front Shine springs! Think that the rate and the height of those springs are the most important key and I guess that as far as I keep them there, I can even afford to screw-up little bit more with rear springs and still be in a great position comparing to other setups. Only the future will show who's wrong and who's right as I have to find other people with other setups and either drive their cars or have some friendly canyon-carving, etc. Bottom line, the car the way it is now can be driven well beyond all speed recommendations through any curves in 100% safety and complete predictability, while offers great margin for human error.


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_.....If the above points are correct (especially if #6 is true in a steady-state situation, without the shock tuning coming into play), then we can check off a major starting conjecture in the guide (that tire camber trumps lateral weight transfer in the stock suspension setup), which would be fairly encouraging! 

The problem is I never tried # 6 in steady-state situation! Have to invent some skid-pad somewhere to do it. 
Ciao


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Forgot to say ...... When I was done with all of the above parking lot wet and dry and virtual slaloms and all the rest described above, on Sunday night put back (for the first time since this topic goes!) the S-03 tires. Have been driving on them this whole week now and it is simply boring to drive the car at and around all speed limits on the open streets. The speeds in curves increase even more, to a point that if fun driving is wanted - the speeds when this occurs are way too high for open road. It starts to get also very difficult to judge the lack in handling from the suspension, as the tires compensate incredibly a lot! The feeling is that the car can out handle almost any situation or any other car on the road (I am saying "the feeling", as it may not be like this). I have to work very hard as to induce understeer - meaning, have to do something really stupid, on purpose. And even then it is incredibly easy to correct and bring back. There is this specific wide U-turn sort of, which is a going-home challenge every night. With the Touring tires on the dry I have reached a constant 31 mph speed around it, with the tires starting to slip slightly..... With the S-03 on pouring rain las night I did 29 mph and there was room for more, I just did not feel like going more as it was incredible already for wet surface! I hope it will stop raining every night, so I can see what could be done on dry ........ But my conclusion is that these tires are too much for this car! It is too easy to drive on moderate daily speeds. It is possible to drive much faster than what we should do on open roads and the car still behaves like never before.
So, many people come here and ask "what shall I do first". Then somebody answers like "Great Tires give much more than Great Suspension!" ....... I would say: it is great idea to listen to such advise


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

That's a great point Peter. People usually put a lot of money on their suspesnion and use the stock tires. Good tires, not alone help in handling, they dramatically help in braking, off the line traction and wet traction (some tires). 
BTW, did your ride suffer from the stiff sidewall?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_......the comfort was unacceptable. But just before going back home to change it again back to 25%, I pulled of the road and decided to put the front rebound to full stiff (100%) just for fun, to see what a horrible ride would that be for the last few miles to home...... Well, here the beauty begins! Instead of getting worse, the ride got so much better, I could not believe it! ....... At 75% stiff on the front was Nirvana! At 50% was the worst..... then at 25% front was comfortable again, but the car start feeling "loose" in the slalom, etc......

Hello Peter!
I found a quotation I thought you might appreciate







. It's from the Race Car Vehicle Dynamics text, which starts every chapter with a quote (from some luminary) that sums up the basic thrust or challenge of each chapter. On Chapter 22 -- Dampers (Shock Absorbers), the quotation comes from none other than Carroll Smith himself (yes, the suspension guru's guru), and it goes:
"Sometimes I think that I would have enjoyed racing more in the days of the friction shock. Since you couldn't do very much to them or with them, I would have spent a lot less time being confused."
Not bad, eh? Thanks for mapping out some of the highs and lows of the Konis; I'll use your findings as a base for my own experiments. Cheers!
- W


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
"Sometimes I think that I would have enjoyed racing more in the days of the friction shock. Since you couldn't do very much to them or with them, I would have spent a lot less time being confused."


I agree with that quote entirely. There's a lot to be said for finding one 
setup that is acceptible (but perhaps not perfect) and then learning how to 
drive the snot out of it. Folks who are constantly messing with their 
settings at the track or Auto-X usually end up going slower. I used
to just thrash the heck out of the stock suspensions on my old Saab
and Toyotas.
Peter, your description of having to drive the car super fast on the sticky 
tires to get the rear end to do anything at all, is part of the reason that 
folks like me put a big rear sway bar on in the first place. So that we can 
actually toss the car around at *less* than 10/10ths and still get a car with 
a nice handling *feel*. A rear bar can help or hinder you at the limits of 
adhesion depending on how you drive it and under what conditions, but 
at 7/10ths on sticky tires, I much prefer to have a more lively rear end, 
than one that I have to push really hard to have any fun with. The
inherent stickiness of summer tires gives you a little margin when you
do decide to push it to the limit too.
I'm actually going through this with my R32 right now. The damn car is
glued to the road. Not big understeer like a FWD car, occasionally neutral,
but oversteer is very rare and instantly reigned back in with modulation of 
the throttle or the ESP. Everyone should go drive an R32 on a twisty road 
to appreciate what a really *fast*, no body roll, comfortable, predictable 
suspension feels like. I won't say it's boring, because this car smokes 
through corners, but I find I have to go pretty fast to enjoy it. I'm now ooking at the KW V1 based SHS coilover suspension from HPA (which 
claims to go from 0 to 35mm of lowering, where I'd obviously leave it at 0), 
and if that doesn't make the rear end a bit livelier, then I may add to it the 
Neuspeed rear 22mm sway bar. There's a rumor that there's a 
revised Haldex program out there that'll help too.
ian


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_......Whenever I hit something with sharp edges (broken pavement) I feel it's gonna kill me, it's a HUGE BANG. If the same height of bump doesn't have a sharp edge, the impact is MUCH more bearable.......... The other funny thing is whenever I go to a carwash, right after my car feel much more comfortable and this is truly a mystery to me










Hello Alex,
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Your car gets more and more interesting-sounding all the time







. If you promise to take what I'm thinking here with an enormous grain of salt (i.e., level of certainty = not very high!), here's a shot at the latest symptoms:
1) First, before going any farther, you haven't replaced any of your bushings / strut mounts / etc. with non-OEM, "improved performance" parts, have you? It doesn't sound like it from your earlier descriptions of your car, but I just wanted to confirm that before getting into deeper water.
(Just for the record (and Alex, here I'm not speaking to you, as you know all this stuff already, but it's in case there are any newbies still following this thread): non-OEM (or badly aged) bushings can really do a number on the ride comfort. For example, if you open the hood on a Golf/Jetta IV and pop off the black plastic caps on top of the strut turrets, you'll expose the strut fixing bolts and part of the black rubber strut mount/bushing (it'll look like a black rubber ring between the chassis and the metal bits of the strut attachment). If you then push on the bumper and bounce the front of the car up and down, you can see the black rubber visibly bulge and flex, with the strut fixing nut actually rising up and down relative to the chassis (at least, you'll see this on a car with new bushings). This compliance in the strut mount is what takes away a lot of the initial "bang" on hitting sharp-edged bumps, and when people replace the mount with harder "performance" bushings, or when the mount is old and has fallen apart, the bumps pass right through into the chassis.
Just to give another example of what poor bushing choice can do to the ride (again Alex, not for you, but for those just getting into suspensions): back in my British sports car days, I tried installing aluminum (yes, aluminum) front chassis-to-antiroll bar mounts, which were highly recommended by all the tuning vendors and were the de rigeur antiroll bar mod used by vintage racers of the time; the idea was that by eliminating the compression and distortion of the stock rubber mounts, the bar would be quicker acting, giving more precise handling. Well the handling might have been more precise: I couldn't tell, because on New England roads the car banged hard enough on every little bump and seam to fling the glovebox open every 50 yards, and my front wheels were mostly airborne. (The problem was friction between bar and mount, which prevented the bar from rotating freely under shock loading.) After that, the vendors came out with nylatron, which was much better for about 300 miles (after which they fell apart), and then with urethane, by which point I had already stopped trying....)
Anyway Alex, if you had gone over to urethane bushings and/or harder strut mounts, or if your existing mounts have hardened or are falling apart (none of which I think apply to you), that would have supplied a possible explanation for your "BANG" and weird car wash experiences: the "Bang" is explained above, and soapy water can temporarily free up an otherwise friction-plagued bushing. But as you're on stock bushings, (1) I have no idea what's happening at the car wash(!)







, and (2) the "Bang!" will probably be mostly or partly due to the fast-acting Bilsteins (judging from Peter's experiences in swapping from Bilsteins to Konis). So it's possible that switching to Konis will cure some of that banging (but that's a really expensive experiment, so please try a Koni-equipped car to confirm!).


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_.............many times when I drive off my house, the ride is fine, but after a while it gets worse........the effect gets exponentially worse with the bump size. .....whenever my car is jacked up in the air (oil change or other thing) and the springs are free in the air... right after I get back in the car, the car rides MUCH BETTER.......I definitely have lesser comfort or stiffer springs/shocks after constant bumps on the road. However, I think this can also be caused by Bilstein auto-valving system that gets stiffer by each bump. Neuspeed doesn't recommend cutting, but to use the shorter bumpstop. They are mostly worried about axle hitting the exhaust with shortened bumpstop. 


2) (You're still taking everything with an enormous grain of salt, aren't you? Please do!)
The above certainly sounds like you have both a bumpstop problem and a (probably mild) jacking down issue. Interesting. My guess (as everyone has a fair amount of respect for Neuspeed) is that Neuspeed must have specced the shock valving with enough rebound damping that it jacks down a little bit in normal use -- not enough to bring the car down onto the shortened bumpstops they recommend, but enough to contact the taller stock stops.
Your ride getting "exponentially worse" on bigger bumps is consistent with a car hitting or riding on the rear bumpstops, as they behave as a very non-linear supplemental spring -- relatively soft initially, but much firmer with a little bit of travel. And the ride getting worse as you drive off in the morning sounds as if you start off a little above the stops, but jack down onto them after you've driven a bit.
The much better ride after your car's been on a lift is a bit curious. Certainly the overall behaviour is consistent with that of a car that normally sits just on or just above the stops: when your car's on the lift, the suspension droops (giving you more clearance above the stops), and when the car's back on the ground, the clearance persists for a little while, giving you a smoother ride. (Have you ever measured the ride height right after the car's been up on a lift? Is it higher than normal?) The problem with the above theory, however, is that a well-functioning suspension with stock bushings should not have enough friction in it to hold the car up for more than one bump after it's come off the hoist. If your car really rides a bit higher for a little while after it's come down off a lift (again, something you can check with a tape measure), then something in your suspension is creating enough friction to hold it for a little while, and I can't think of what it could be. (Once again, had you installed aftermarket anti-roll bars (which I know you haven't), I would suspect the urethane bushings mounting the bars to the chassis -- but that can't be the case here...) Anyway, it's a bit of a mystery to me.
As for the Bilstein "auto-valving system": I would doubt that the shock valving is stiffening up with successive bumps. There are very, very few shocks that are designed to have a "memory" of prior bumps, and the only one I (at least) have come across (I think maybe it was marketed under the Edelbrock brand?) used a small internal weight/spring/dashpot to soften -- not stiffen -- the valving after an initial big hit. If there's a shock or Bilstein engineer out there who can correct me, I'm all ears, but to my understanding the "auto-valving" system you're referring to is probably a temperature compensation feature: as shocks warm up with use, the shock oil "thins out" (becomes less viscous), and the valving has to be made stiffer to keep the damping rate from weakening. The goal here, however, is to maintain a consistent damping rate across a wide range of temperatures, not to stiffen the rate with heat (lest your car start handling differently in the summer than in the winter!), and it's a feature of top-quality shocks in general, not just of the Bilstein.
(As a side note here: Bilstein's marketing literature is rather unique. Their advertising claims (e.g., that their shocks are progressive when in fact they're digressive) are sometimes more technically misleading than you would expect from a first rate company with a first rate product (which is what they are). It's almost as if the Bilstein marketing department has decided that it's hopeless trying to sell a shock on its real technical merits (given how poorly understood shock absorbers are among the general public), and since their shock is so good that customers are invariably happy with them, they might as well say anything that sounds good enough to bring the customers in. In any case, Bilstein promotional literature is an odd mix of straight technical facts vs. assertions that are legally true but not terribly informative to those trying to understand how their suspensions work, and I think the auto-valving claim falls in that latter category (though again, if there's a Bilstein engineer out there (as opposed to a marketer), I'd be happy to stand corrected







).
In any event, if the overall conjecture is correct -- that you're hitting the stops on moderate bumps at all times, and that you're possibly jacking down onto the stops after driving a bit -- then this aspect of your ride might improve a lot if you can replace your stock bumpstops with the lowered ones. As this change is a lot easier and far cheaper than swapping shocks all around, it sounds like the first thing to try doing!


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_......Also, it surprisingly ride MUCH better on _smaller bumps_ when you are traveling faster, for instance we have this bridge that has these expansion joints that are like an-inch apart. If I travel on them at 30 miles/hour, I feel them pretty bad, if I instead go at 40-50 it's much more comfy.


Yay! Finally, something that's straightforward to explain! Just as the sprung mass of your car has a resonant frequency (the rate at which the car body heaves up and down over bumps -- somewhere around once per second for passenger cars), the unsprung mass (e.g., your wheels) has one too -- only this unsprung resonant frequency is much, much faster. (Have you ever seen a car on the highway with a blown shock at one corner? Even though the car is proceeding serenely down the road, one wheel is bouncing up and down like crazy -- the rate of that bounce is the resonant frequency of the unsprung mass.)
Anyway, if you hit a series of small bumps at just the right speed, the bumps force the wheels to bounce up and down at the resonant frequency. In effect, the wheels are happy to bounce at that rate, and in so doing they don't transmit very much force up into the car body. Drive faster or slower than the perfect speed, however, and you start transmitting bumps up into the cabin. (Back in high school, my sister used to drive me crazy by slowing down on a washboard dirt road near our school -- knock the fillings out of our teeth, it would, and she would never believe me that it would be much smoother driving faster....)

This is a characteristic of all cars, though every car will have a different resonant frequency, and hence a different ideal speed over the chatter bumps.
(Oh just by the way -- if you ever see a TV commercial where some mundane sedan is driven over an incredibly rough-looking series of bumps, with the wheels going crazy but the car body staying stable enough for the beautiful passenger inside to apply her makeup, well, that car is generally being driven at the perfect resonant-frequency speed for the benefit of the cameras. Slow down or speed up a little, and there'd be mascara everywhere....)


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_......
I might have experienced better handling after spritied dirving. Like the first turn or two are not as easy and then the car for some reason corners better, I though that's bilstein auto-valving coming to play or could be the bumpstops as you explained.


And finally, again I would doubt the "auto-valving" (though the advertising literature might definitely imply so!), and it might be that after a couple of corners you're jacked down and securely seated atop the bumpstops, which will stiffen your ride and handling (and as it'll be seated at the rear, it'll be reducing your understeer). If such is the case, the downside of going to shorter stops might be that your normal handling will become what you're currently experiencing on the first 1 or 2 corners.
Hope your semester is going well, Alex, and once again please take the above with an enormous grain of salt -- I don't have much personal experience with the things you're reporting (other than the chatter bumps), and hence it's all theoretical conjecture from 3000 miles away. But please keep us posted, and I'll let you know if any alternative explanations come to mind. All the best!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Hi,
Wow, that was again another great post. I have to spend some time on that to reply, but I can tell you that I have not used any non-OEM bushing for that matter. I changed my strut mount upper, strut mount upper strut breaings and bushing on install (all OEM).


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Question for Pyce*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_......With time I am getting more and more confident and have to say that for the spirited-driving-style-on-the-street situation this thing is as good as anything else that I tried.









Hello Peter!
Quick question: is your favorite setup still Shine fronts / stock rears / Shine rear antiroll bar; or (with the newly adjusted Konis) do you now prefer the Shine front / stock rear / no bar setup? And have you heard anything new about the 150lb rear springs?
Cheers!








- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*few things....*


_Quote, originally posted by *Alexb75* »_ .....BTW, did your ride suffer from the stiff sidewall? .... 

It is firmer, that's for sure, but still remains very comfortable. The difference is almost like if you pump some extra few PSI on your existing tires (on a stock car thought, because we know that on a stiff car few PSI can make a lot more difference in ride quality)....... Nothing to complain about, just a change you notice, but no drama. Very impressed, because I was expecting to be stiffer than what it came out to be. For the records, the tire pressure is 36-37 PSI all around. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Carroll Smith quoted by Ceilidh* »_ ...."Sometimes I think that I would have enjoyed racing more in the days of the friction shock. Since you couldn't do very much to them or with them, I would have spent a lot less time being confused."..... 

You have no idea how much better I feel after reading this...... because if this man (if he is what you all say he is) is confused, then perhaps I do not have to be frustrated this much when doing some adjustments and things do not really go in the way I think they should. It is very frustrating, because when I read about these things on the internet, my feel is that everyone, everywhere, got everything covered, understood, solved and that everyone has the answers, the right ideas, etc....and that I am the only one who is not only going to the wrong direction, but is also getting more and more confused. Now, knowing that even the greatest are "confused" makes me feel much better. It makes me feel more comfortable in my own much deeper than his confusion








The main problem here is that the more you learn, the more you understand how little you know and how there is so much more to be learnt. It is never ending story, but n case we are lucky to nail well some guessed direction - then it becomes very pleasant and fun......

_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_ ......There's a lot to be said for finding one setup that is acceptable (but perhaps not perfect) and then learning how to drive the snot out of it. Folks who are constantly messing with their settings at the track or Auto-X usually end up going slower....... 

And I think what you said wraps it up very nicely! I think this is exactly where I am at - very acceptable, but not perfect (is there such thing as "perfect"?), but yet very easy to drive, very predictable and with great potential for the driver to explore, learn and utilize even better in the future. I guess now is time for chapter two - _"learning how to drive the snot out of it"_. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_ ..... Peter, your description of having to drive the car super fast on the sticky 
tires to get the rear end to do anything at all, is part of the reason that 
folks like me put a big rear sway bar on in the first place. So that we can 
actually toss the car around at *less* than 10/10ths and still get a car with 
a nice handling *feel*. A rear bar can help or hinder you at the limits of 
adhesion depending on how you drive it and under what conditions, but 
at 7/10ths on sticky tires, I much prefer to have a more lively rear end, 
than one that I have to push really hard to have any fun with...... 

Absolutely great point, Ian ...... which brings automatically the question: Why do we actually tune (or try to tune) our cars? Is it to go faster but in safety through curves or is it to just have more fun and feel like we are flying but we are actually not that fast than before? What you said makes so much sense and I am glad you said it, but then we really have to very conscious of what exactly we want from a car and what our final goals are. Many people (and I guess I am in this category too) would love to have the car tuned in a way that you can go faster (if necessary) through curves with the most ease, the less drama, the most predictability and the most safety margin just in case of mistake. I do not want to say it is the right way, but it makes sense to me for street use....... Then I guess you are part of the other category, more unique and with more experience - category of people who had been through what I am going (the easy to drive, yet fast car) and now what more fun, more dynamics, more participation in the driving, etc. So, you would have a setup like the one you have, that is fast if it has to be, BUT only in the hands of the experienced driver. Also could be fast in the hands of a novice, but the margin for errors are less that the "easy to drive setup" and if such novice is not prepared for certain behavior, perhaps once those 7/10-th are crossed - it may send him/her in trouble and if such trouble is not predicted/expected - then it becomes a real danger and someone can get hurt and it is not nice at all..... You may wonder why am I writing this, as it sounds like something you already know. Well, the reason is that so many people do not know and so many folks do think that "the more the better" but actually it is not quiet true. And in fact is one of the lessons I have learn through these experimentations here - that "stiffer" does not always mean "better", not on the crappy road at least. Also "less roll" not always means "better" (again, for specific street use). Again, in the hands of an expert everything could be different, but we are not all experts even if we so much want to be......

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Quick question: is your favorite setup still Shine fronts / stock rears / Shine rear antiroll bar; or (with the newly adjusted Konis) do you now prefer the Shine front / stock rear / no bar setup? And have you heard anything new about the 150lb rear springs?

Winston, I very much prefer the latest - Shine Front - Stock Rear - Front Koni 75% - Rear Koni 50% - No Bar...... And it has to do a lot with Ian's quote above - The car is not slow at all and yet remains very, very easy to drive, absolutely predictable and most of all - so much forgiving if things go wrong. Things kind of do not go wrong to begin with. I know how almost everyone here does not fully believe what I am saying because the theory somehow puts this setup into "a lot of understeering" category, but I would honestly describe my car as it is now as very, very mild understeering car. You see, I did not even know that I may like this kind of understeering car, because I guess I never had one, but now that I drive it, I just feel that it is my cake. I discovered (too late, but hey, better late than never) that actually understeering can be great advantage, because, yes it may not make the car the quickest through the curve, but at the same time it is much more natural and easy to "handle" for the driver, so the extra given ease and confidence give more to the final result (you end up going faster) than what is taken away from the pure dynamics of how the understeering car corners versus neutral or oversteering car....... hope it makes some sense.
At this point, I think I am really done. At least I have a setup (solution) that is most of the time what exactly I need. comfy car, easy, forgiving and not slow at all. I guess when I learn even more about it, can become even faster. I tried few more times to play with front rebound, but the 75% is really the best I could find and the car will stay there. I will leave everything in the way it is as it works great (to me). The only two things that I am willing to try from now one would be the new 150 lb Shine Rear spring (Dick is very busy with racing nowadays, but I hope he will find time to ship me a pare soon) and eventually another Shine Rear Bar (old or newer design). I have great hopes in the 150 lb Rear springs, it may eventually be the official "Shine Lite" (that Ian fought so much about) and be the definite answer for many of us.......


----------



## ~cia~ (Oct 30, 2003)

Hey Pyce, glad to see your finally happy with your setup. It has been quiet the journey reading this thread but at least i can walk away knowing i learned something from all this. 
Just a quick question on your current setup. Did you replace the bumpstops on your Jetta with ones from another car model or did you cut the factory bumpstops?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: few things.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
I very much prefer the latest - Shine Front - Stock Rear - Front Koni 75% - Rear Koni 50% - No Bar...... The car is not slow at all and yet remains very, very easy to drive, absolutely predictable and most of all - so much forgiving if things go wrong. Things kind of do not go wrong to begin with. I know how almost everyone here does not fully believe what I am saying because the theory somehow puts this setup into "a lot of understeering" category, but I would honestly describe my car as it is now as very, very mild understeering car. .........

At this point, I think I am really done. At least I have a setup (solution) that is most of the time what exactly I need. comfy car, easy, forgiving and not slow at all. .......

I believe you, Peter!! Reducing stock understeer & sharpening overall handling by stiffening the front springs & leaving everything else alone is something that works on a number of other cars, and I'm glad to hear it benefits the Golf/Jetta IV chassis as well!
Please don't worry about what others here or elsewhere will say about your setup -- people who insist that your setup can't work are generally acting on articles they've read in enthusiast magazines/ websites/ advertising copy/ popular books, and those articles are typically based on racers' experiences. (And in turn, racers are focused on tuning cars that already corner fairly flat, and whose tire cambers are optimized for cornering grip -- neither of which apply to the stock Golf/Jetta!) Hardly anyone writes about the handling theory behind cars that are intentionally designed to roll a lot, and thus nobody will understand why your car works as well as it does. But congrats on ignoring the naysayers, and for persevering to a setup that seems to be pretty nice!
All that being said, I hope that you'll still be able to report someday on 2 more things: (1) One is whether your front breakaway is still progressive on a wet "skidpad"-style arc (at some point, too much front stiffness will lead to pretty sudden final breakaway -- though it sounds like you're still well short of that threshold); (2) the other is what your car is like with a nice tall set of 150-lb/in rear springs, which I would expect would further balance out the front & rear ride while making everything just a little bit sharper! But that's all for the future; until then, please enjoy your car (as Ian suggests), and congratulations again!
Cheers! - W
P.S. -- the front Konis are on my own car at last, and I'm starting to play around with them. Initial impressons are that they're about as counterintuitive on a stock suspension as you have found with your Shine fronts, but already I love them! A full report once I've sorted out what's going on......


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: few things.... (Ceilidh)*

cia - I do have brand new Stock Buffers (bump stops), the same ones that my car came with, but I never installed them as I wanted to keep all the "messing" with the suspension as constant as possible. However, I "glued" few slices of my old Buffers some time ago and had been riding with them for the last month or so..... Meaning: The current buffers are not full size, but slightly shorter. It "should" not affect anything as the rear springs are the stock ones, so they are pretty tall anyway, but I just wanted to keep going with the same "half" buffers for consistency........ I decided once I am done, to put the brand new "B" Buffers, those that I had before stock, put the dust covers and forget about it. I think that moment is quiet close, I just want to try the 150 lb spring and that one "may" require different shock rebound setting, so the Konis are about to be taken out again, therefore no new buffers, not at least this week..... But I guess the new spring will be tall, so I really doubt the buffers would affect anything.....
Winston, GREAT NEWS for the Front Koni! I am so looking forward to write you findings and try to compare some feelings and see how just the different front springs would affect the whole "comfort" issue, and of course, handling wise, etc..... 
As for your two final questions..... On #1 I can say that car on the rain is as good as in the dry. I mean, nothing unpredictable happens. Contrary, it is so predictable, it is almost not fun driving because it does not longer need the concentration I used to have before. I would like to explain more ...... before, with stiff suspension, when I go for a spirited drive in the mountains, on certain curves I caught myself of not even breathing while the car is going thought he curve. On almost every "hard" corner I was in apnea, which was coming spontaneously, I guess in attempt to increase the sensitivity of the body and brain, so even the slight abnormal movement could be detected in time. At this point I guess the reason was that no roads here are smooth, so the fact the suspension was stiff means not so smooth but kind of unpredictably-bouncy curves, where you do not know when exactly the car is going to "jump", therefore max concentration is needed to be able to detect those "jumps" immediately and be ready in case some action is required...... I hope what I am saying makes sense. I guess we all are different, so it may not apply to everyone, but it is my experience........ With he softer suspension today, the roads are no longer bumpy and in the same fast curves I tried - I no longer stop breathing and I no longer "worry" about unpredictable "jumps" as they simply do not occur anymore. So, bottom line is - the car right now may be (in absolute scale) be slower than what it was before, but I am able to drive it faster as it is easier and requires less concentration, etc. I just feel physically being more relaxed when going through the same curves now, at the same speeds like before, I am not dreaming about this. As for the "breakaway" when pushed, I did a small experiment, on a very long but constant radius curve (almost 300 degree) with very wide two-lane sort of design. Entered at constant speed, great turn in, and then "locked" the steering wheel at something like 10-15 degree left and kept it like this without correcting even a millimeter through the whole curve..... the result was a nice smooth perfect long turn within the lines. Then go back again, same speed enter, same degree turn of the steering wheel, "lock" in position, but once the car turned in and seated on the outside wheels, I started accelerating progressively. The car slowly started to "push", clearly trying to make the radius bigger (expected) and even if the instinct says to turn the wheel even more and/or back off from the go pedal - I kept my hands locked and did not do anything but continuing to accelerate as to see how will the car behave...... so, by the end of the curve, the speed was about 15 mph more than from the entrance and the car ended up being half way in the next lane. Again, nothing new here, typical example of understeering, BUT this one very smooth, very stable, progressive, predictable! Done on wet with S-03 (higher speeds required for same results, just for the records) then done same weather on Touring tires, repeated with both tires on dry as well - bottom line, very steady, very easy to handle the whole process. The nice part is, all this on absolutely NOT smooth surface! The car is really great on fast long curves, and it is even greater if the road is not so good...... I do not know how otherwise to test as to achieve more precise results. Let me know if this was not valid enough. As for question #2 - As soon as they arrive, I will put them and see....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Why Lowering*

Hi Peter!
Just noticed your latest post (sounds like great news!), but as I already had a totally different question all typed up, let me just post what I had, and I'll address your findings in another day or two.








Anyway, this is what I had typed up:
Hello Everyone(!) -- question for you all:
Since the readership of this thread seems to have dropped to a hardy few (all of whom I like and trust), I think it's finally safe enough to ask something that's been perplexing me for a while. To wit:
What's with this fascination on the Forum for lowering the suspension? 
Every time I look at the new threads that have gone up, I'm amazed to see the number of people who absolutely positively have to find a way to lower their cars. Even when they realize that their handling will suffer, many of them still want to lower. So what's the reason? Is it that some of them believe that lowering the CG via lowering will improve the handling? Or is it just a fashion thing?
The reason I ask is that:
(1) here in Boston I wished I had more ground clearance, not less. It's not just the ice and snow berms we have to climb over in the winter; even in normal summer driving, I'm perpetually easing gingerly up and down various friends' driveway ramps to keep from scraping the front valence, and getting to lakefronts in N. Hampshire invariably means driving down rutted dirt roads. Are the roads really that much smoother in other parts of the country? Or do the lowerers own multiple vehicles, with a big SUV or truck for the times they go out to the country, or help a friend move apartments?
(2) As for appearance, why is lower considered better? Is it a generational thing? The Golf/Jetta in stock form has the lip of the wheel well concentric with the wheel, with the fender flare concentric above the fender lip -- when you look at it, you see a series of concentric circles (the rim, the tire, the fender lip, the fender flare), which is a major part of the aesthetic design, and it's kind of nice. Whenever I see a lowered Dub, the lip is "squashed" flat against the top of the tire, and the whole design integrity is gone -- why is that considered desirable?
(3) To go into #2 in more detail, why does everyone want to get rid of the "fender gap"? At least with 15" wheels (with tall 65-series tires mounted on them) the gap doesn't look at all unsightly to me -- is it that people don't like the springs and shocks to be visible in the gap? (Me, I like to see the bright yellow Konis peeking through -- totally innocuous to ordinary folk, but a cool "hidden performance" marker to those in the know!). Or is it that the gap looks much worse when you start putting on really big diameter wheels? (We have a few 17 inchers here and there around Beantown, but they're few and you almost never see anything bigger -- the potholes would destroy them in a matter of weeks....)
(4) More generally, is it just that lower = sportier? I really have trouble seeing this, maybe because I'm used to seeing low, sweeping vintage Jags, Morgans, MGs, and the like. The Golf/GTI is a very boxy, stubby shape, and perched up on the stock wheels and suspension it has a winsome, rarin'-to-go appearance (my female friends call it "cute"). Does nobody else like it? If you slam this boxy stubby shape 2" closer to the ground (eliminating the feared fender gap), you don't get a racy/ sporty car -- you get a boxy, stubby shape that's sitting 2" closer to the ground; how is that cool? Or are people really focusing on the Jetta, and does a lowered Jetta look really nice? (I've never seen one in the metal -- people just don't lower Jettas around here very much.)
Or is it that because race-modified cars are often lowered, people want the lowered look, because it's more like you'd expect to find on a race track? Or is it just the urge to have something that's visibly modified from stock?
Anyway, I don't want to appear to criticize all the people who want to lower (after all, they appear to be in the majority, and beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder!), and please let me apologize if I sound like I'm criticizing. I just wish I could understand it! Maybe if I lived in a state with smooth roads and no snow, where I was surrounded by gorgeous race-prepped machinery, then perhaps it would make more sense. As it is, though, I'd rather have a stockish-looking sleeper that I can still use as an all-around car, but which just happens to handle really well.







Anyone else feel the same way?
Just wondering, everyone -- no offense intended to anyone (least of all to you Alex, as I know you like your Neuspeed Sport setup!), and hope you're all having a great week. Cheers!
-W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Why Lowering (Ceilidh)*

Hey Winst,
Good question. To answer that, it's a combination of all you mentioned. The biggest factor is that as a rule of thumb, when the wheelgap is bigger than the tire sidewall, the car looks like 4WD and looks like lifted. The problem occurs when you go 16, 17, 18... the bigger the wheel, the bigger the gap WILL APPEAR. 
The other thing is that for MANY YEARS, performance suspensions ONLY came lowered. There was absolutely no widely available sport suspension which didn't lower. This is also true with OEM upgrades.
In addition, MOST people when they upgrade wanna SHOW OFF. So, if you are keeping the car at stock levels, no one knows if you have a $2000 coilovers there. It also makes the car look wider from behind. So, with a lowered car, it's a statement that this car has been modified. It's a fashion statement, if you've ever been to car shows, the winners (for looks) are almost ALWAYS the ones with the lowest wheelgap and sometimes when the tire is underneath the fender. I actually saw the MOST HORRIBLE thing when some IDIOT lowered a new 2004, Audi A4 Cabriolet so much that the rear tires was underneath the fender. Now, A4 with sport suspension has a very nice wheelgap and looks-wise does NOT require ANY lowering whatsoever.
The other point is that almost ALL sporty cars are lowered from factory. From Honda S2000 to Porsches. So, if u wanna look sporty, u gotto be lowered. 
Lastly, some cars actually GAIN performance with lowering. Like most Hondas and Acuras. Since those cars are more sold that VWs, then in the enthusiast market, lower=performance... no matter what the end-result is. 
For me, my car came with 17, and it really looks silly with stock suspension. I had a 2003 A4 with stock sports suspension and it had the best wheelgap and the handling and comfort was absolutely phenomenal. I am careful with my car, and don't bottom out. Streets on Vancouver are not that great, but if your lowered shocks/springs are stiff enough to control the body u won't have much problems, I had a lot of rubbing and problems with H&R cupkit which is much softer than this Neuspeed. 
I was looking for a drop of 337 (3/4"-1") with good performance but really the closest thing I could find was Neuspeed sport and performance-wise it has been serving me well both on track and street. My only problem is ride comfort which I will somehow fix either by changing both springs/shocks or shocks only.
Hope this helps!!!










_Modified by alexb75 at 12:24 AM 3-4-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Why Lowering (alexb75)*

Thanks Alex -- that makes a lot of sense! I can definitely see the Looks-narrow-from-the-back problem, and the one car on my block with 17 inchers (5 Golfs and 2 Jettas, and 5 have 15" wheels) does look more jacked up, with the shorter tire sidewalls.
Still though, it sounds like the rest of the country must have flatter (if not smoother) roads -- it'd be a nightmare having a lowered car around here, but I guess that's just part of having a 350-year old street system.
(On a related note, I'm a bike roadie, and whenever we have people move in from out West, they always show up at the first ride with narrow 20mm or even 18mm high pressure clinchers; after a couple of rides and several pinch flats (or trashed rims) they wind up on 23mm or 25mm treads like the rest of us.







)
Good luck with midterms!
- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: few things.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ I am so looking forward to write you findings and try to compare some feelings and see how just the different front springs would affect the whole "comfort" issue, and of course, handling wise, etc..... 
....

Hello Peter!
Sorry about the delay! Here at last are my impressions of a stock GTI suspension (OEM "Sport Suspension" on Jetta) with Koni Sports all-around. I'll do it in installments, and for the sake of completeness I'll start off with a bit of theory; please feel free to skip ahead to the appropriate section (though it might be a few days before the relevant sections are posted), and tell me where my experience fits or goes against what you've seen thus far. Cheers!
-	W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 1 - Very Quick, Very Rough Sum-Up*

Here's the first installment, Peter -- I'll put the rest up as fast as I can type it up (probably about once a day or so). Thanks for your patience!








Summary:
The handling of my car with Koni Yellows front and rear is (for me) fantastic -- but it is decidedly not the suspension for a great many of the people who post on the suspension forum (though it might be perfect for many of the people who just read along...). In a nutshell:
* The handling is essentially "what the car should have been like from the factory", in that the stock roll and heave are gone, the perceived understeer is far reduced, the real understeer on slow-speed city-type corners is so reduced as to be almost unnoticeable, the tires no longer squeal, and the steering precision and response have gone up immensely. Simply put, the car is now fun to drive in a way that the stock setup was not.
* That being said, the handling is not even remotely "race car like", and the overall cornering limits are quite low. I would call it a "nice", "fun", "forgiving" set up, and it is "sporty" only in the original 1950's definition of "sportscar" in that it offers the driver a lot of feedback and flexibility, all while being extremely forgiving. It responds to classic cornering technique, and offers a lot of feel, and on 195/65-15 touring tires it gives a driver plenty of feedback on how well he's set up for and executed a corner -- but it is not going to blow the doors off any "tuned" car, and it is not going to satisfy anyone who equates "good handling" with razor-sharp steering, flat cornering, and the ability to dart back and forth (e.g., sudden lane changes) with abandon; plus it will give the driver no opportunity to tell heroic back-at-the-pub stories of hanging the tail out on trail brake/ lift throttle/ what have you maneuvers on real-men's mountain curves. It's nice, and fun, but it's no go-kart.
* The ride is *not* "better than stock"; nor is it worse. It's different, and different in ways that will be unacceptable to some while being extremely welcome to others. Those whose local roads have a lot of smooth-edged big bumps will think it rides better, whilst those who hit a lot of hard-edged ridges and cracks, or who drive on asphalt with many unseen small wavelets, are going to think back fondly on the original stock suspension.
Bottom line, this is the suspension for me (at least until Dick Shine comes out with a nice "Shine Lite"), as I can practice my driving technique and have fun at sane, legal speeds. It is probably the right suspension for the vast majority of enthusiasts who simply want their cars to handle a bit better than stock -- but it will seem pretty underwhelming to those who first try (for a short test drive) a more highly tuned "performance" kit; ironically it is a setup that will perhaps best be appreciated by those who have detoured into the more "serious" kits for a time before realizing that life (for many of us) should not be that serious. But it's a "nice" suspension for a "nice" car.








Detailed analysis to follow, in installments.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 1 - Very Quick, Very Rough Sum-Up (Ceilidh)*

Hey Winst,
Nice write up. Can u tell us at what stiffness setting you have tried the Konis? Are those impressions based on different Koni settings, or just based on one rebound setting?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 1 - Very Quick, Very Rough Sum-Up (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Can u tell us at what stiffness setting you have tried the Konis? 


Absolutely, Alex -- more installments forthcoming!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 2 - The Car and the Settings*

The Koni Yellows have gone onto an otherwise bone stock 2000 GTI 1.8T, which has the GTI suspension (supposedly 7% stiffer than stock Golf, equivalent to the Jetta "Sport" suspension), and is still running on the OEM 195/65-15 Goodyear LS touring tires (this is a fairly low performance, ride & fuel economy-oriented tire).
As noted elsewhere, the shocks are rebound adjustable by the following amounts:
Fronts: 1 3/4 rotation (630 degrees) from full-soft to full-stiff; external knob
Rears: 2 1/8 rotation (~765 degrees) full-soft to full-stiff; "internal", remove to adjust
On all adjustment notes, I will give the number of turns or degrees of rotation, rather than referring to 1/2 stiff, 1/4 stiff, etc.
The shocks went onto the car in the following stages:
1) Rear Konis plus stock front struts, with rears adjusted to:
* full-soft (0 degrees)
* 1/8 turn (45 degrees)
* 1/4 turn (90 degrees)
* 1/2 turn (180 degrees)
2) Front Konis plus Rear Konis, with the following damper settings:
Rear: full-soft (0 degrees)
Front: full-soft, 1/4 turn, 1/2 turn, 3/4 turn, 1 turn, 1 1/4 turn, full-stiff (1 3/4 turn)
Rear: 1/4 turn (90 degrees)
Front: full soft, 1/4 turn, 1/2 turn, 3/4 turn, 1 turn, full-stiff (1 3/4 turn)
Rear: 1/2 turn (180 degrees)
Front: 1/4 turn, 3/10 turn (108 degrees), 1/3 turn (120 degrees), 1/2 turn, full stiff
3) Current damper settings:
Rear: 1/2 turn (180 degrees)
Front: 3/10 turn (108 degrees)
4) Hypothesized "Ideal(?)" Settings:
Rear: 3/8 turn (135 degrees)
Front: 1/4 turn (90 degrees)
Discussion to follow.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 2 - The Car and the Settings (Ceilidh)*

Winston, this is getting very interesting! I was hoping that you will try couple of Rear settings together with the new Front settings, but you went way over and did more than just couple! Thanks a lot! It is very surprising to see how your favorite rebound settings are quiet lower than mine. Interesting also to read your first impressions, which arise so many question from my side, but I rather wait for your comments first and then say what I wanted to say........... But if I have to just plain guess, my take would be that the Front Shine plus the 16" I have make much more difference than what we thought, specially the Front Shine! But I rather wait till you tell us the full story (boy, something is telling me I have to take the Monday off as to read what is coming







). Meanwhile, I got a set of 15" GoodYears LS exactly like yours (a friend left them in my garage as he upgraded), so I will go ahead and install those wheels, this way we are going to have very close setups, with the Shine Front spring being the only serious difference, so we can try to kind of do some parallel tests even from distance....... Then by the end of the week I will have a new Rear Spring (







), so we see how that goes too. IS going to be an interesting week. Thanks for doing all this for all of us!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 2 - The Car and the Settings (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
Yes, I was struck as well by how much softer my settings are than yours -- my guess is that it's the difference between my stock fronts and your 225 lb/in Shines, though I'm glad to hear we'll be matching tires pretty soon. Don't worry about Monday(!) -- if you'll forgive my slow posts, it'll take me a while to get everything written down (I thought I'd do frequent posts as I write, rather than dump everything down on one massive post -- if you think I should hold off and consolidate everything, please let me know).
More soon -- have a good weekend!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 2 - The Car and the Settings (Ceilidh)*

Winston, do not worry about your posting delays...come on man! You are already doing so much for all of us on this one - you do not need to excuse yourself, please








I changed to the 15" Good Year LS about 10 minutes after the previous post and we had to go around quiet a lot last night, so we have more than 100 miles on those tires already....... It had been very, very long time ago when I last had 15" tire and it was a very nice reminder of what my car used to be in the beginning. The first noticeable feeling is the great amount of comfort I gained. Winston, the car is like a Cadillac....... well, maybe not really, but I think this is the most comfortable car I ever had (except when was pure stock once) and this is with 37-38 PSI tire pressure, 75% rebound front and 50% rebound rear....... Or perhaps the roads in Boston are much worse than the roads in SFBA?







Seriously, I can drive like this for the rest of my life, it is this comfortable! The funny part is, I like the LS tires too. People complain about them but I think they are not that bad (for being a Touring tire!) I do not really feel the big lost in going down from 205 to 195 width. Actually, it somehow brings more "fun" to the drive as the car "seems" to be easier to throw in the corners and then easier to work with the steering wheel for easier understeer control..... Do not really know how to say it, I guess I like "lighter" steering wheel feel, gives me guess more feedback, it just makes tings easier to me - so with the narrow tires the steering wheel is lighter and me likes it a lot. I will try few different settings, but most of all, I will try that stock Jetta I have been comparing from time to time and do some parallel (back to back) cornering, etc. so this time we have everything the same except the shocks and Shine front - so we know even more about what exactly the these two variables give. But before I even drive the stocker, I already know my car is considerably "better". Basically, to conclude on this one - I thought a lot would be contributed to the 16" (plus one upgrade) but I am surprised how little the real difference in let's say side grip while cornering is. Mind you, I am comparing two Touring Tires.......... Winston, I still remember your post (several pages ago) about how the wider the tires gets (and the shorter the sidewall) the more prone is to ride on the edges, so it is even more critical to keep it flat with some superior suspension setups..... I think my case falls right in here, as my suspension is on the soft side, no rear bar at the moment and relatively soft springs on the rear too. Could it be the reason I am not experience big lost while downsizing tires?.....
On another topic...... light wheels, what do they give and take?....... I have been trying few different combos (wheel/tire) for some time now and of course when the wheel is light - we feel the difference! We also feel the difference when the tire is sticky - the car gets somehow "heavier" to drive around, steering wheel feel changes as well, etc. So, till here pretty much everyhting is stuff we knew already....... We also know that a 16" wheel that weights 20 lb. is better than a 17" that weights 20 lb., because the weight (good part of it) is positioned on larger diameter, so it takes more to accelerate/decelerate, etc..... So, my 16" wheels plus tires are about 35 lb together, pretty light! The 15" steelies with the LS tires are 39.5 lb. Now, I do feel 5-6 lb difference when switching from one 16" to another 16". I just feel it, it is a new lost in acceleration, braking, maneuverability, etc.... Now, last night, switching to heavier wheel, but on smaller 15" diameter, PLUS slightly narrower tire made very significant difference BUT the other way - my car now is much quicker of the line and it is noticeably quicker through the gears too! ....... Someone would say - well nothing new her neither, and I agree, we know the theory on this one, the masses (as stated above) turn on a smaller diameter, but I did not know how much really matter one inch of diameter! I mean, to have a lighter wheel is quiet important, but to keep it smaller size is even more important (we are talking pure straight line performance here, not cornering capabilities). If the tire is narrower too, even better! Basically I did not expect to add almost 5 lb per corner and GAIN straight line performance this much.... Makes me feel like staying 15" for good.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside*

3. Digression -- Clarification of Current Handling, and Aside on Tires
Before diving into an account of the experiments, I should clarify something I said in the initial installment: when I said that the stock suspension with Koni shocks was probably not the suspension for the majority of people posting on the suspension forum, I didn't mean to imply that it's not a great setup -- it's really very nice, and in truth a large percentage of the people on this forum would probably be best off with it. The problem is that, when compared to the "tuned" setups, it lacks pizzazz -- it's like the quietly pretty girl at the dance who eventually turns out to be incredibly fun to talk to, as opposed to the more spectacular bombshell that all the guys are trying to ask out. That is, most people, when they get into suspensions for the first time, are dazzled by grip -- they like the cornering-on-rails feeling that goes with seemingly infinite grip, and they're impressed by a car's ability to make lightning lane changes & other sudden moves with an absolute minimum of fuss (I was the same way, once). To get these qualities, you go with wide sticky tires, stiffer springs, and a setup that holds the tires reasonably upright in a corner -- none of which the stock suspension has. What the stock suspension does have, however, when it's given some good damping, is a really nice interactive feel. It "handles" properly -- it responds to throttle, brake, and steering in a way that rewards good technique, and (most important to me) it can do so at fairly low speeds, so that driving around town is still fun; plus it can go surprisingly fast if treated the right way (though there's absolutely no way it can keep up with a Shine!). That's why I think it's a setup that a lot of people would be more than happy with, long-term -- but it doesn't corner "on rails"; you can feel the tires working and slipping (which again I find very rewarding), and as such it's not suited for those looking for the sensation of infinite grip.
As for Peter (Pyce)'s tire swap: Peter, at first I was surprised to read that you haven't lost very much by going from 205/55-16 to 195/65-15, as the lower profile tires typically give the steering more "bite", and the reflexes become noticeably sharper. But then I reread your post more closely, and it all does make sense:
1) Yes, as you've found, there's surprisingly little difference in absolute cornering grip between a Plus-1 and a Plus-0 tire, particularly when the wheels are leaning in the corners because of body roll. The much bigger difference comes from the tire design itself, and in practice the wider tires tend to give more grip because the tire manufacturers don't offer high-performance tires in the narrower sizes. One can't blame the manufacturers (how many people in the world want narrow performance tires?), but that's one of the pities of the modern tire universe -- years ago, there were some great performance models as narrow as 70-series, and they gave you that light feel you've noticed with the 15 inchers while still furnishing good grip and steering precision. Now, most narrow tires are kind of soggy feeling, and if you want good grip and response, you're often forced to go wide.
2) From what you've said before about your driving technique, I would guess that the real virtue of a lower/wider tire -- increased steering response -- is being lost on you because you're not throwing the car into corners. If you're easing the tires into a corner (and I have a similar driving style), then the taller tires work just fine, and a lower profile mostly just gives you more weight, a rougher ride, and a lighter wallet.
3) The "heaviness" in steering feel with the wider tires is something I've noticed too, and it's something I can't explain (steering geometry is not something I've particularly studied). But the lightness with the 15 inchers is nice, isn't it? Imagine it with a similarly-sized performance tire -- the resulting combination of light feel, precision, and grip would be pretty wonderful!
Anyway, what you're reporting is by no means bizarre; it's not even a little-known secret -- instead, it's something that people just don't talk about much because it's simply not fashionable. But (as mentioned a long time ago) the chief suspension engineer of the new MINI was quoted by CAR Magazine as saying that the MINI handles best on the narrow 175/65-15 base tires, and Peter Egan (one of the best writers for Road & Track, and someone with a lot of racing experience) will occasionally mention how he finds many modern performance cars over-tired (i.e., given tires too wide for best handling, as opposed to highest grip). So welcome to the select club of people who appreciate moderate tire widths!! Few people will ever believe you, but you're definitely in the right!
- W
Oh, on a different note: until one of us closes the loop (e.g., you drive a stocker with Konis, or I drive a Shine-Front car), we won't know for sure, but my tentative guess is that the ride comfort of our two respective cars is probably pretty similar right now. You'll be pitching more on big bumps, and you should be firmer on all surfaces, but the objectionable part of the ride equation on these cars seems to be the "out-of-sync" busyness that comes from mis-tuned shocks, which both of us have fixed, and the wallop of hitting hard-edged bumps, cracks, and expansion strips -- which seems to be controlled by tires & dampers at the front, and perhaps not so much from the springs. So without having tried your car, I would bet that your car is probably about as comfortable as mine, albeit firmer feeling. But that's just a guess!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (Ceilidh)*

Hi Winston,
Great post. It seems that Koni's with stock suspension is the answer for most folks who want improved handling on street while keeping their ride at a decent level. This probably characterises your own application and Peter's and almost 75% of the rest of us. I am also in the same boat of trying to improve ride, but my application is a little bit different. I need a setup that is streetable with better comfort than the one I have, while being able to track it whenever I go to my events. So, I have a few questions. 
So, my question is "What do you think is the most contributing factor for this suspension NOT to be a suspension called on-rails?" 
Is it springs, shocks, tires, suspension design (McPherson) or a combination of all. What is missing to make this suspension handle better? You mentioned this is not like Shine, shine has 25% stiffer springs front and even stiffer in the rear (vs. stock). Is that the missing link? Have u ever been in a Shine car? Do u think if I mate the Konis with Neuspeed Sofsport (similar to shine) then it would create some on-rail car (not an easy answer ofcourse) with 225/45 sticky tires?
Peter - It's interesting that you liked the 15" better and didn't feel the cornering didn't suffer. As Winston explained it's probably related to your driving style. For me, shorter sidewall helps in turn-in and ultimate grip. The other part about beefier tire is correct, it may not add cornering grip all the times (as Winston mentioned) but it sure helps with braking IMO.
Winston & everyone else:
I have another question about handling characteristics and the feel. How can u describe/feel roll and when it's more or less in a particular setup? I can easily describe and feel understeer/oversteer and also turn-in, but what exacly is "roll"? For me the way I measure suspensions handling is at what speed the car can get around a corner.
Another interesting thing I have felt, is when I am driving my Dad's soft Camry. It feels that I can take corners with "LESS" effort than my own car which has better suspension and some other cars I have owned with pretty good suspension. I do NOT mean it can take the corner faster, BUT easier!







Like I do not have to battle with the steering wheel as much and interestingly my body isn't bounced around in the car as much or pushed to the side as much? How could that be explained? Is it that the car is softer, leans to the side and takes the pressure off my own body? I appreciate a response. 
Thnx a lot http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (alexb75)*

Hi Alex!
These are very interesting questions you raise, and I would like to take a stab at answering them -- but would it be ok with you if I held off for a few days / a week or two? Right now work has gotten pretty busy, and I'm doing all I can to write up the shock experiments for Peter before I start forgetting how the experiments took place. After the shock results go up, I'll post some additional installments on Golf/Jetta IV suspension principles (as Peter and I currently understand them), which might answer some of your questions -- if they don't, could you please repost your query at that time? Sorry for the delay, and thanks in advance for your patience(!).
As a quick note, your comment on your Dad's Camry is thought provoking. I'm (perhaps fatally!) handicapped on this forum for having very little personal experience with modified Golf/Jetta IV's (A2's and Fiestas, yes, as well as MGs, Triumphs, etc., but not the A4 Golf/Jetta), and so I'm going from what you, Peter, Oldman, f1forkvr6, GTITraveler, and others are reporting. What you relate on your having to "fight" the steering is reminiscent of what Peter reports on bumpy corners with the full Shine -- but in both cases I'm a little surprised, as a good performance suspension is supposed to have enough compliance that you're not being bounced around so much on bumps (even the Formula Ford and the Lotus 11 I drove once -- real race cars -- had a very supple ride over bumps). Are you still on the full length rear bumpstops, and Peter, do you recall whether your bumpy-corner-with-Shine experience was before or after you cut the stops? Riding on the rear stops in a bumpy corner is consistent with your being thrown around, but if the stops have been cut down, then I'd really have to think.
Anyway, please bear with me on the installments, and hope they eventually prove helpful. Cheers!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (Ceilidh)*

Just a quick note for tonight....... when I said what I said about the 15" vs the 16" in my case, I was talking about Michelin Energy 205-55-16, very hard, slippery and soft wall tire, comparing to Good Year LS 195-65-15, relatively softer, surprisingly grippy tire....So, in a way, the smaller tire is kind of more "performance oriented" (if I can say so) tire than the slightly wider Energy and that is partially why I promote the specific 15" tire over the specific 16" tire..... Now, is we include the Bridgestone Potenza S-03 I have also in 205-55-16, then the difference is really night and day!
I just wanted to clarify this, so people do not think I have gone completely crazy, promoting stock tires for performance driving








P.S: Today I bolted another interesting set: Half way used Yokohama ES-100 in 205-60-15 size on stock Avus wheels....... Now, this combo will drive circles around a 205-55-16 Touring tires! Funny enough, I had it long time ago with the Full Shine and did not like it, like the tires were sort of bouncy, making me feel that I had so much wall flex and no suspension work actually, then I moved to 16" and forgot about the set in the garage's corner....... Put them back today and funny enough, with the "softer" combo I have now, they do work absolutely great! People are not super excited about this tire on bigger sizes, but on the stock modest 15" size it actually provides great fun! I will say more when I put few hundred miles on the this week, but from the drive today seems very promising, as grip is noticeably up and comfort is still great....ciao
P.S: Great posts above, BTW! Alex, you open a great talk for the next week! Looking forward to read more







You all have a great week!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_...So, in a way, the smaller tire is kind of more "performance oriented" (if I can say so) tire than the slightly wider Energy and that is partially why I promote the specific 15" tire over the specific 16" tire..... Now, is we include the Bridgestone Potenza S-03 I have also in 205-55-16, then the difference is really night and day!..........
P.S: Today I bolted another interesting set: Half way used Yokohama ES-100 in 205-60-15 size on stock Avus wheels....... Now, this combo will drive circles around a 205-55-16 Touring tires! Funny enough, I had it long time ago with the Full Shine and did not like it, like the tires were sort of bouncy, making me feel that I had so much wall flex and no suspension work........from the drive today seems very promising, as grip is noticeably up and comfort is still great....ciao


Peter,
The points you raise here are so important that I want to give this thread a bump (kind of a pity that so few people are reading along anymore...): it's a wonderful demonstration of what people in the know (e.g. Dick Shine & others) have been saying:
1) ***** Tires have an absolutely enormous(!) effect on the handling and ride of a car, and upgrading to a better tire can do wonders for handling precision, overall grip, and ride comfort. *****
To that fundamental point, it'd be good to reemphasize 2 more things your experience is showing:
2) ***** Upgrading the tires is NOT synonymous with upsizing the rim and going to a wider, lower tire aspect ratio (the familiar Plus 1, Plus 2, etc. concept). Of more importance is the construction and compounding of the tire (as you are showing, a moderate performance tire will outperform a wider, less performance-oriented model). The Plus 1 etc. concept can give a driver more steering precision & "bite", as well as wider access to true performance tire models, but the moderate tire widths have their virtues, and one can often save money on wheels by keeping the stock rims and upgrading the tires that cover them.
3) ***** Finally, it's great that you're also showing how important it is that the specific wheel/tire combos match the suspension, and how the specific tire brand & model can matter as much as the size. There's a reason why the OEM tire manufacturers work closely with the automakers to customize tires specifically for particular cars (e.g., look at the BMW-specific models in the TireRack listings), as getting a good match between chassis & tire can make or break a suspension (particularly where good ride is a major goal).
On 2 side notes: (1) many newbies often don't realize how badly tires deteriorate in ride comfort and noise levels as they age (I think everybody notices the loss in traction), it can be misleading to hear purchaser reports on how magically quiet and soft-riding a new tire is -- quite often, the new tire seems quieter and more comfortable "than stock" simply because it's new, not because it's actually better riding than a new example of the stock tire.
And, number two (2) -- Peter, how big is your garage!!?? One begins to get a picture of an infinite cornucopia of spare springs, shocks, rims, wheels, and tools -- how does your wife feel about it all?








Thanks for the posts, Peter and Alex! Let's see how far this all goes!
- W


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Anyway, what you're reporting is by no means bizarre; it's not even a little-known secret -- instead, it's something that people just don't talk about much because it's simply not fashionable. ...
... So welcome to the select club of people who appreciate moderate tire widths!! Few people will ever believe you, but you're definitely in the right!

These really are important statements. I find narrower tires in addition to being lighter and less costly, add much more "road feel" to the driving experience. If anyone has driven older Volvo or Mercedes sedans (talking 1970's vintage here), running on 175mm 70/80 aspect ratios, on 15 inch wheels, recall how nice the turn-in was on those vehicles. It's almost as if the tires were carving turns in the same fashion skis do - of course to experience this required smooth steering inputs that let the tire's modest contact patch progressively build lateral loading. It felt as if the car was dancing through the corner, rather than storming it's way through.
With the advent of very good tires in sizes 205/50-15 and 205/55-15, I have felt no need for plus-sizing my wheel/tire package. After thinking about those older cars, I'm glad I haven't succumbed to the temptation of purchasing shiny new - bigger - wheels.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarific ... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
.....I find narrower tires in addition to being lighter and less costly, add much more "road feel" to the driving experience.......running on 175mm 70/80 aspect ratios, on 15 inch wheels....was...almost as if the tires were carving turns in the same fashion skis do.....It felt as if the car was dancing through the corner, rather than storming it's way through.

f1,
That's a beautiful description!!  "Danceable" is certainly the way to describe the feel -- you've put it very nicely! My first Spitfire (on 145mm 80 series tires!) had a steering that was very alive -- the modern wide rubber & power steering has made for much faster, easier to drive cars, but we've lost something in the name of progress.
Anyway, thanks for the great description!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 4 - Koni Rears plus Stock Front Shocks*

Ok, Peter,
Working slowly towards the post you're really waiting for (performance & ride with full Konis, which hopefully will be the next installment); here's the full account of Konis on the rear, stock everything else.
Thanks again for your patience! - W
TEXT:
For several months I ran rear Konis with stock front shocks, not for any scientific reason, but because the rear shocks began leaking at 34k miles and, being a New Englander, I only replaced what was broken.
Before the replacement, the ride and handling were appalling. When brand new, the GTI had a plush and smooth ride that was much appreciated on our winter-torn streets, so much so that friends riding in the car would spontaneously exclaim "This is smoooooth!!!". Handling was always so-so, with a bit of heave and roll, but it really wasn't bad at first, particularly if the brakes were used to set up for a corner (trail-braking worked beautifully). After 15k miles, however, the handling & ride both began to deteriorate, with more heave and general gyrations at speed, and more audible bump-thump. By 30k miles the highway speed ride was sufficiently uncontrolled (on moderately uneven, slightly curving roads like the Merritt Parkway in southern Connecticut) that I was uncomfortable keeping up with feeble stock Sentras and the like, and a female friend once remarked on how rough the ride was compared to that of a BMW Z3 2.8 (which is a pretty stiffly sprung & damped car).
At 34k miles the right rear mercifully began spouting oil, and I was finally able to justify the purchase of rear Konis. On removal of the stock shocks, I found that not only were they very weak in damping (I could easily compress and extend them with my hands), but they were binding as well; the right rear in particular was essentially locked when not moving, but would extend or compress easily once the initial "stiction" was overcome. Hence the stock shocks at that point were the worst of all worlds: extremely stiff (because of the binding friction) on bumps, but too soft (because of the blown damping) to control the heave and sway. That's why the car both rode badly and handled badly.
**Implication #1:
Unless my car was grossly atypical, people replacing the stock shocks with virtually anything after 30k + miles may find the replacements much softer riding and better handling -- regardless of the quality of the new replacement shock. If by then they've forgotten how nice (or at least how tolerable) the car was when new, they might well think that even cheap shocks are great handling, or that even overly stiff setups are very comfortable. (At least, that would explain some of the folks raving about better-than-stock comfort on some very questionable kits!)
In any event, the relatively stiff Konis on the rear of my GTI proved to be softer-riding than the worn and binding OEM 30k mile shocks.

**Ride Appraisal of Rear Konis with Stock Front Shocks
Although the rear Konis were less objectionable than the binding OEMs, they were never truly comfortable when paired with the (worn) stock fronts. As Peter found with mixed Konis and Bilsteins, there was a "lack of coordination" between front and rear that proved impossible to correct. In Peter's car (with front Bilsteins), his front seemed over damped; with my car (stock fronts), the rear felt harsh (regardless of damper setting), and more maddeningly still was a continuous high-paced pitching/bouncing motion that existed on almost all surfaces. On big bumps I could feel the front go through full oscillations while the back stayed glued to the pavement (after passage of the bump), so I could tell the front was underdamped relative to the rear, but the sensation on smaller bumps (and even on ostensibly smooth roads) was nothing so obvious: instead, there was a persistent, rapid, tightly snubbed jiggle that did not obviously feel like pitching, but in hindsight was due to the front bouncing almost imperceptibly while the rear stayed put (this became apparent when I finally put Konis in front, at which point the annoying jiggle went away). This annoying sensation became worse with more rear damping, to the point that whilst the handling was most fun at 1/2 turn rear, I wound up dialing the rear Konis back to full soft, simply so I could stand driving on the highway.

**Handling Appraisal of Rear Konis with Stock Fronts:
Having to dial back the rear Konis (for comfort reasons) was a real pity, because at 1/2 turn the handling was a lot of fun. At full soft, the handling was so-so: roll was reduced relative to blown stock, precision went up, and the car ceased to plow straight forward on tight 35 mph corners, but it still felt disconnected and not overly enjoyable (please remember, my front shocks were quite worn at this point). But at 1/2 turn, it was a revelation. To explain:
At 30k miles, the most vexing handling trait on my car was a "plowing" understeer in an extremely tight 35 mph corner near my parents' house. Whereas when the car was new it would turn in properly, with the blown stock shocks it would plow straight on, with a loud rumbling scrubbing noise from the front tires, regardless of what I did with throttle or brake -- it was basically impossible to pitch the car into a slow corner. At 1/2 turn on the rear, however, turn-in became sharp, and it was quite easy to hang the tail out for a moment on corner entry. In fact it was a very safe, fun, self-correcting bout of oversteer: at corner entry, as the car began to take a set, an extra little crank on the steering wheel would bring the tail out in a gentle little swing -- but then this swing would self-stabilize and gently disappear as the car fully took a set (at which the dampers ceased to affect the lateral weight transfer). It was not the fastest way around town, but it was enjoyable, and at this setting every street corner in Boston became an opportunity to play slow-motion rally driver -- all at legal speeds and without any tire noise to attract attention. Moreover, there was a sensation that the absolute amount of roll had actually reduced -- something that I discounted at the time, until I later read Peter's comments and then installed the front Konis (more on this later, in a future installment).
**Implication #2:
Rear damper settings can definitely be used to drastically improve turn-in and to reduce or even eliminate corner entry understeer. In the case where the stock car plows forward with massive understeer in a tight, slow-speed corner, rear damping can so improve the turn in that this understeer never materializes.
Unfortunately, the highway ride at 1/2 turn rear/ stock front was so irritating that I dialed back to 1/4 (still a little entry oversteer available if you really tried), then 1/8 (no more oversteer), and finally back to full soft (understeer again, but not so pronounced as before, and no more plowing).
Implication #3:
Between Peter's experiences and mine, it seems apparent that mixing shock absorber brands front and rear is simply not a good idea, if a good ride is the goal.
There were more experiments, but the findings have been superceded by what I learned with Konis all around -- hopefully I'll find time tomorrow to write that one up. Cheers, folks!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 4 - Koni Rears plus Stock Front Shocks (Ceilidh)*

Simply GREAT! ..... The darn thing is I wrote for about 30 minutes in response to you Chris and Winston and just when I was about to be done, the computer crashed and I lost it.......and now I am so frustrated because quite liked the written...darn! Will try to say few things tomorrow, so frustrated now..... Great stuff from all of you! BTW, the 150 lb Shine rear was shipped this morning, so before the end of the week we will have better idea of what it gives...... Hope is not going to crash again before I send this now.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 3 - Digression: Handling Clarification and Tire Aside (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hi Alex!
As a quick note, your comment on your Dad's Camry is thought provoking. I'm (perhaps fatally!) handicapped on this forum for having very little personal experience with modified Golf/Jetta IV's (A2's and Fiestas, yes, as well as MGs, Triumphs, etc., but not the A4 Golf/Jetta), and so I'm going from what you, Peter, Oldman, f1forkvr6, GTITraveler, and others are reporting. What you relate on your having to "fight" the steering is reminiscent of what Peter reports on bumpy corners with the full Shine -- but in both cases I'm a little surprised, as a good performance suspension is supposed to have enough compliance that you're not being bounced around so much on bumps (even the Formula Ford and the Lotus 11 I drove once -- real race cars -- had a very supple ride over bumps). Are you still on the full length rear bumpstops, and Peter, do you recall whether your bumpy-corner-with-Shine experience was before or after you cut the stops? Riding on the rear stops in a bumpy corner is consistent with your being thrown around, but if the stops have been cut down, then I'd really have to think.
- W

Ok, by bouncing around I didn't mean that the car bounces up and down on bumps. What I mean is the force inflicted on my body inside the car. I am probably not explaining it well, but in my car I really need those GTI's seat's support cushions on the side to keep me in my seat, while in the Camry I don't feel as much force inflicted on my body during a turn!!! I can also turn the wheel with one hand without worrying much about losing the steering, while in my car I have to make sure I am holding the steeing tight. It could be the tires giving too much feedback from the road to the steering or just the combo of shocks/springs/tires.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (Konis front & rear)*

5. Discussion of Damper Experiments: Konis Front and Rear
Hello Peter -- here goes!
1) First off, a quick reminder -- I've settled for now on 1/2 turn (180 degrees) on the rear Konis, and just a bit over 1/4 turn (somewhere between 108-120 degrees) on the front; this is a good compromise between ride and handling, but I think a better one *might* (and the emphasis is on the "might") be R 3/8 / F 1/4 -- I haven't tried that hypothetical combination (tools, jacks, garage/driveway are at parents' house in NJ), so please take it with a grain of salt.
2) Rather than go through the experiments chronologically, I'll try to present the findings in blocks -- the same info will come out, but whereas it'll be harder to track what exactly I tried, it will hopefully be easier to discern the results. And so, in no particular order:

3) Ride & Handling Sensitivity to Damper Setting
Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was how sensitive the shocks can be to the precise damper setting, and how difficult it can be to find the right adjustment. The critical sensitivity is *not* handling -- one can definitely feel the difference in handling at different settings (as reported in the Rear Koni/ Stock Front installment, but the handling responds to shock stiffness in a relatively smooth, predictable way (more on that later): with a bit of patience, once can quickly zero in on a good handling setting using 1/4 turn or even 1/2 turn sweeps on the adjusters.
To restate: it is easy to get an adjustment for good handling, and it does not matter if you are slightly off of the absolute "ideal".
The ride, however, is something else entirely. At the front of my car (which rides on stock GTI springs), the sweet spot for a comfortable ride seems to be less than an eighth of a turn wide. If one is experimenting with 1/4 turn or 1/2 turn sweeps, it is entirely possible to miss the sweet spot entirely and never even get a hint that it exists.
To explain further, once the shock is out of a very narrow range in which it is very comfortable, it doesn't make much difference (in terms of ride comfort) whether the adjustment is "slightly off", "moderately off", or "way off". This characteristic is consistent with what's reported elsewhere: If you look at the Koni test/ review on the Tire Rack website, for example, you'll see that the testers there didn't report a lightning difference in ride comfort between 1/2 stiff and full stiff -- it was a bit harsher, yes, but not night & day different. My initial impressions were exactly the same: whether I had the front on 1/2 stiff (1 turn) or full stiff (1 3/4 turn) didn't matter that much (it was rather harsh, but it didn't get all that much harsher as the shock stiffened); turning the adjuster just didn't seem to make much difference in that range.
In contrast, once you're at the narrow range that's "sweet", a tiny adjustment can have a surprisingly noticeable effect. At the front of my car, the ride is extremely comfortable at 1/4 turn, noticeably harsher but still quite acceptable at ~108-120 degrees (basically, I just turned the knob a little bit to see what would happen), and "generically" harsh from 140-150 degrees on up. Indeed, I was lucky: if the sweet spot didn't happen to just be at 90 degrees, I never would have found it, as I was dutifully sweeping through the adjustment in 90 degree increments.
That's why I'm uncertain about the ideal setting: I never found the sweet spot at the rear, and didn't even suspect the existence of a sweet spot until I stumbled on it at the front (driving back to Boston from my parent's house, I would stop every other rest stop or so and fiddle with the front settings, just for fun). But although I have never yet tried 3/8 at the rear, the behaviour at 1/4 and 1/2 turn suggests that 3/8 might possibly do it (it'll be months before I can try, however).
NOTE: for those just joining in, the fronts take 1 3/4 turns from soft to stiff, and the rears have 2 1/8 turns of adjustment. Thus "1/2 turn" is NOT half-stiff; it's closer to a quarter-stiff...

4) The Importance of Adjusting Front & Rear in Concert
Another big surprise (which, like the preceding, supports what Peter found earlier) was the extent to which one cannot adjust the front and the rear independently. I had earlier assumed that I could hold one pair of shocks fixed (in adjustment) and adjust the other pair, and thereby work out how the ride comfort varied (e.g., 1/4 is good, 1/2 is harsh, etc.). But as Peter found, changing the shock adjustment at one end of the car has a big effect on how adjustments at the other end will feel.
For example: when I first started playing with the damper settings, I put the rears on full soft, and tried a whole bunch of front adjustments. Then I put the rears on 1/4 turn towards stiff, and tried the front adjustments again (for those following on, the front Konis on the Golf/Jetta IV can easily be adjusted with a knob; the rears have to be removed from the car, however, and so it's a bit of a pain to do over and over again). On both full-soft Rear and 1/4 turn Rear, a front adjustment of 1/4 turn (Front) was nothing particularly special, and when I eventually cranked the rears up to 1/2 turn, I didn't even bother trying out 1/4 turn Front (why should I? -- it seemed like a waste of time). But driving back to Boston later that day, I figured why not?, and just for fun pulled over at a rest stop and changed from 1/2 turn Front to 1/4 turn Front -- and instantly the front was smooth riding as it never was before!
It's all been very confusing, and my only solace is that people much brighter than me seem to find shocks very convoluted as well (supposedly one reason why Lotus is so successful in its suspension consulting work is that they have a couple of guys who are just wizards at sorting out shock damping).
If I had to guess, I'd venture that what's being demonstrated here is theGolf/Jetta IV's apparent sensitive to pitch-jiggling (not a real term, just one I'm making up here), which is the annoying jiggling bounce that arises when the front and rear damping gets a little out of sync (or more accurately, when one end of the car is allowed to move in ways that the other end can not). This pitch-jiggling is irritating enough on the highway that it perhaps masks the more traditional firmness changes that take place as you adjust damping. For example, I'm guessing that the front damping was always pretty good at 1/4 turn front (less impact harshness), but at 0-turn Rear and 1/4-turn Rear, I couldn't tell because of the stronger jiggling pitch.
Anyway, whereas 1/4 turn Front was nice, leaving the front there made the rear (at 1/2 turn Rear) seem too harsh relative to the fronts, so I've dialed the front up to ~108 degrees, where the front and rear firmness seem to match. But I think if I bring the rears back to 3/8, I'll be able put the fronts back down to 1/4 turn.

5) Basic Ride Findings
Compression Damping
As should be becoming clear, I'm pretty hesitant to say anything about shocks that I haven't personally tried (it's really pretty confusing), but my impression is that if ride is the primary concern, the Koni Sports have a little too much compression damping (especially at the rear). Noting that the adjustments affect only rebound damping, I found that dialing the shocks below a certain point didn't help the ride much, as at some point it was the initial impact harshness from (the non-adjustable) compression damping that became the limiting factor, and further reductions in rebound only sacrificed handling for little comfort gain. But I can easily be wrong here, as I've no way of trying a Koni with slightly reduced compression.
In any event, whereas it's possible that a stock 2.0 Golf or a non-Sport Suspension Jetta might be best off at full-soft, I found that on my GTI, a full-soft setting was one that combined compression-firmness with rebound-softness in a way that was a little weird. Dialing up the shocks a little (especially at the rear) seemed to make things more consistent -- it's firmer than at full-soft, but somehow more predictable and natural feeling.
It's also possible that a little more weight in the rear (e.g., with a Jetta) the compression damping will feel less overly-firm.
Ride Discomfort
Sorry -- I should have said this at the outset: when you're adjusting for ride, you'll need to find a stretch of road that feels awful. At least on New England back roads, I found most of the shock settings to be more or less comfortable -- there were differences, but not marked enough to be able to tell what difference the different damper settings were making. Instead the ride problems became vivid only at highway speeds, on hitting substantial hard-edged bumps, potholes, expansion joints, or transverse cracks and ridges in the road. On those sorts of road imperfections, under-damping led to a wavering and mild bouncing post-impact (the bouncing is pretty subdued; the sensation was more of a unsettled, unsteady feeling immediately after passage of the bump, which often led to that pitch-jiggling...). Over-damping, by contrast, gave a sharp rifle-shot Crack! and a quick, jolting buffet. In between those two regimes (at least on the front) is a narrow zone where the sharp Crack!'s have stopped, but the uneasy feeling is very subdued -- that's the place you'll want to find.
Setting the Shocks for Comfort
Anyway, if Peter and I have done our experiments right, we should be bracketing the range that people will be experiencing: the stock suspension (my GTI) has the smallest front-to-rear spring rate difference among all the common setups, whilst Peter's Shine front/stock rear has the greatest; similarly, my suspension is within 7% of the softest springs out there (the 2.0 Golf is supposed to be a little softer), while the Shine fronts are the stiffest of the normal non-coilovers. So the following should cover most people:
i. When adjusting the Konis, keep the Front & Rear settings fairly similar. With an OEM spring combination, stay initially within 1/4 turn difference (try it first with the rears slightly stiffer than the fronts). With a more extreme difference like Shine front/ stock rear, set the fronts stiffer, but keep the difference between front and rear within a 1/2 turn. With setups with intermediate F/R spring differences, pick a shock difference appropriately in between.
ii. Keeping this F/R shock difference, adjust the shocks in tandem until you find the ride/handling balance that suits you. For a stock setup, start with the rear at 3/8 turn; for something like Peter's setup, start at a full 1.0 turn. For something else, you're on your own, but pick something between 1/2 and 1 rear turn to start. If you've picked the right starting point, you should notice ride differences with adjustments as small as 1/8 turn at a time; if the comfort doesn't change with 1/8 or 1/4 turn changes, then you are not near the sweet spot. To test the dampers, drive at highway speeds over sharp jolting imperfections (though nothing so big as to damage the car or tires, of course!). If you're diligent & lucky, you should find a sweet spot where the rifle Crack! has just disappeared (as you soften the shock) -- that's where you'll want to be.
iii. Once the ride starts to feel pretty good, you can play with the fronts to see if you can tweak it.
iv. Of course, you can always iterate if you've lots of time and patience!
v. To repeat Peter's and my settings: my stock GTI 1.8 T is at 108 degrees Front, 1/2 turn (180 degrees) rear, and I think a better one might be 1/4 turn Front, 3/8 turn Rear. Peter (on Shine fronts and stock rears) is at 1 1/2 (540 degree) Front, 1 turn (360 degree) Rear. I think the difference comes because Peter needs firmer damping at the front to control the strong Shine spring, after which he needs firmer rear damping to get rid of the pitch-jiggling (plus he has a Jetta, which is heavier in the rear). For me, with the much softer stock front spring, I can use much softer front settings, and a softer rear setting thus quells the jiggling.
Your own settings will unfortunately differ according to your springs, your car body style, and perhaps even your tires & wheels.
Oh, and if you're so fortunate as to live someplace where the roads don't have sharp-edged jolting obstructions, you can pretty much set the Konis anywhere you want -- they'll be pretty comfortable regardless!

6) Final Result -- Ride
When the shocks are finally dialed in, the ride is really quite good. It is not, however, "stock", and depending upon your preferences, you will find it either better or worse. Here are my impressions of the differences:
A) First off, if you're coming off badly worn OEM shocks & struts, you will probably find the ride (and handling) much better than before, simply because your old shocks were no longer functioning properly.
B) A brand new Golf/Jetta, however, has a very plush, magic carpet ride (for such a small car) over patchy pavement at low, city speeds. Even with the Konis dialed in, the Koni-shod car will have lost this low-speed tranquility. You're not being pummeled with sharp jolts (at least not after you've found the sweet spot), but neither do the bumps pass by unnoticed. Instead, the ride is well-damped but busy -- as the wheels drop into and climb out of bumps, the whole platform of the car quickly but gently moves around in sympathy. You'll notice this movement on the highway as well, where there's a kind of weird sensation in which your head stays more or less stationary, but the car is moving around you -- if you can imagine the windshield being the frame of a picture, you can stare straight ahead at the horizon, no trouble, but the "picture frame" is rapidly shifting, tilting, and moving back and forth. On slightly bigger bumps, you do feel a rounded jolt that quickly goes away, and when the wheels drop off a ledge or into a depression, you'll feel the car "drop!" in a way a new stock suspension does not. For people who like a really tranquil ride, this busyness can be distracting, and for these people the ride will have deteriorated relative to stock.
C) The flip side of the stock suspension, however, is its behaviour over bigger bumps at higher speeds. Even when new, the stock suspension feels underdamped in those situations (even from a pure ride perspective), with lots of movement up and down (plus pitching and rolling) after passage of the bump; some people even get motion sickness from the stock car on a difficult road. These sensations are entirely gone with the Konis -- instead of floating and heaving over the road, you feel glued down to it -- the platform will hunt around busily over all the road imperfections, but it only does what the road does -- there's no after-float or heave. People bothered primarily by the stock floating will thus find the Konis to be much better riding.
Me personally: I think the ride is slightly less comfortable overall (for me) compared to a new stock Golf, but the increased firmness is nothing like an SUV, has not yet received any unfavorable comment from any passengers, male or female -- and it feels far "sportier", the way that I'm used to fun cars feeling. I wouldn't mind having the low-speed magic carpet back, but on the whole it's a good trade-off, even on a pure ride basis.
Handling findings to follow(!)


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (Ceilidh)*

Winston - simply OUTSTANDING! Sorry, no time to write now, but will do so later..... FANTASTIC job! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## wolfsburgSLC (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (pyce)*

Question: Do you guys all autocross? I would hope with all this talk and experimentation that you guys are actually racing your cars. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (wolfsburgSLC)*

Hello Wolfsburg,
Some of the guys here autocross (e.g., Alexb75), but I never have. Years ago I did a tiny bit of road racing, until I realized that (1) I was only competent, not good or very good; (2) there was a reason we were all wearing helmets and fireproof suits; and (3) I'm basically a chicken







. So suspensions are only a hobby now, and it's fun to troubleshoot. Are you an autocrosser? If so, please take all this with a considerable grain of salt -- autocross suspensions can be pretty different from the mild road setups we're exploring here. But thanks for the thumbs up!


----------



## wolfsburgSLC (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (Ceilidh)*

My brother is an avid Autocrosser in his 337, and ran in 17 SCCA events last year. He runs in Street Mod, and is pretty competative, but it is hard to compete with EG Civic hatches that are stripped bare, and only weigh 2000lbs. The fastest local car seems to be an early 90's Civic with just a B16 with intake/headers/exhaust and it is slammed on the ground. It gets the FTD at most races it competes in. I am trying to figure out the exacts physics between a car like that that outruns Z06 Vettes in SCCA events, and slamming a MKIV.
I am married and a church-goer, so unfortunately I was only able to do the Saturday events. I ran my old Jetta WE last year, but plan on running my GTI this year at every possible Saturday event I can attend. He and I are always trying to keep up on our reading of tech articles, and have been trying to follow some of this. I figure if I am going to be worrying about suspension geometry that I should be driving my car. I am running FK Konigsports on my GTI, and it is considerably better than stock, but I am sure not tuned properly. I am not a fan of the Shine look, but I am always open-minded and eager to learn. Hope you guys don't mind people like me trying to glean some of your knowledge from these threads. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (wolfsburgSLC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wolfsburgSLC* »_Question: Do you guys all autocross? I would hope with all this talk and experimentation that you guys are actually racing your cars. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I do some. I do maybe 2-3 auto-x a year, but go to track events with my performance drivers' club on different circuits (BC, Seattle, Portland). I do NOT race for winning and our track events are not competetive that much, in 3 of the 4 classes you cannot pass unless you are signaled to do so. All I do is for fun and to improve my driving, so my needs are not to win races but to have a setup that is livable on the street, and good enough to keep me on track when I go to events.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*6A. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions*

Final installment on the shocks, Peter (in two halves) -- at last, the handling:









This one's much more straightforward to write than the was the ride comfort installment: the shock adjustments do more or less what one would expect, with a few surprises. I'll go through the expected stuff first, then progressively move into the less routine findings.

General Handling Crispness
A night and day difference here: even compared with what I remember of my GTI when new, the car on tuned Konis is far more responsive to the steering wheel, much tidier and flatter on quick transitions, and more communicative on what the tires are doing. The transformation is pretty dramatic -- if part of your handling enjoyment is having a car that listens to control inputs, then it's hard to argue with Dick Shine's suggestion to modify the shocks first (we're ignoring tires here, of course).
This part of the handling equation is affected by shock adjustment, but the effect is broad and absolutely predictable. At full soft the crispness is better than stock, but there's still a noticeable amount of roll (and a hint of sloppiness on my GTI (non-Golf 2.0) springs & bars). At full stiff there's not much slop at all, and my tires become the limiting factor for general feel and precision. Damper adjustments of 1/2 turn increments make a noticeable difference in the crispness, with the effect more obvious on the soft end of the range than towards the top (i.e., 0 to 1/2 turn is more discernible than 1 to 1.5 turns). The adjustment for good handling seems to be a little stiffer than that for the best ride: were I not concerned about ride at all, I would probably have the fronts at 3/4 (270 degree) or 1 turn (360 degree) rather than the 108 degrees I've settled with, and I'd probably try moving the rears up proportionately.
Unlike Peter with his stiffer Shine front springs, I began to see some downsides when I moved the front adjustments beyond about 1 turn (360 degrees). With really stiff shock settings (on a soft stock spring), things began to feel a little "dead" -- whereas at lower settings the car had a nice "danceable" feeling (to use f1forkVR6's phrase), at stiff settings there was an inertness that, while very stiff, crisp and tidy, was simply less fun. When coupled with the ride tradeoffs that come with over-firm damping (plus the tires seemed to cope less well with maintaining traction over patchy bumps), this trait made the super-stiff settings less than desirable (though again, Peter found something different with his stiffer springs).

Turn-in
Again as expected -- but expected in that it agrees with what Carroll Smith writes (e.g., "Drive to Win", CSC, Palos Verdes CA, 1996), not with what the tuner mags say:
In simple theory, increasing front damping might be expected to degrade turn-in at corner entry, as it increases the lateral weight transfer at the front (which should reduce overall front traction). In practice, however, the turn-in improved markedly the moment I replaced the stock fronts with the Konis, and moving up on the front adjustments seemed to improve it still further (though once again, there came a point (around 1 turn (360 degrees) on my car) where the improvement began to tail off). If I interpret C. Smith correctly, what seems to be happening is that the stock car "falls over onto the outside tire" on corner entry, causing the front end to initially wash out, and the stiffer shocks improve turn-in response by keeping the car more upright at the moment the wheel is cranked over. Regardless, the car is much more decisive on corner entry now.

Over-steer on Corner Entry
One of the minor sadnesses (in fact, the only mild regret) from switching front stock fronts to Konis all-around was that I lost the corner entry oversteer that was so fun with 1/2-turn rear Konis and worn stock front shocks (as described in Installment #4). With Konis all-around, the initial turn-in was very crisp, but it wasn't followed by the little rear sidestep that was so fun with the mismatched shocks. Instead, after the crisp initial turn-in, the car just proceeds smoothly into the corner. As the little sidestep was really more of a handling fault (albeit an endearing one) that has now been corrected, I can't complain about its loss, but I mention it for the autocrossers who care so much about "rotation" in slow corners: if you want to invoke rotation with damper settings on your Konis, you'll probably have to use a pretty big mismatch front to rear (e.g., something like full-stiff Rear, half-stiff Front). At the moment I'm on 1/2 turn (180 degrees, about 1/4 stiff) on the rear, and I can't invoke the sidestep even on full-soft Front, so if the sidestep/rotation is possible, it'll be on stiffer rear settings.

More Problems with Too-Stiff Front Settings
As mentioned above (and in earlier installments), my stock front springs & 195/65-15 tires didn't particularly benefit from extremely stiff front shock settings (be it in ride, grip, or feel), and there was a further problem when I used grossly stiff fronts with softly-adjusted rears: traction out of corners became abysmal.
While the theory fits observation here pretty well (as the car begins to level out at corner exit, the strong rebound on the outside front corner tends to lift (& unload) the front outside wheel), the actual sensation in the corner is worth describing: as related above, turn in and corner entry with full-stiff Front and 1/2-turn Rear was nice and crisp, and nothing felt at all amiss anywhere in the corner or while coming out of it -- everything seemed nice and easy. The only problems were the flashing traction-control light on the dashboard, which came on whenever I got hard onto the throttle coming out of a slow corner, and the complete lack of corner exit acceleration. Turning the ASR off of course led to wheelspin and power understeer, and on the whole I felt little temptation to stay on this setting for very long.

(To be continued)


----------



## wolfsburgSLC (May 8, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
I do some. I do maybe 2-3 auto-x a year, but go to track events with my performance drivers' club on different circuits (BC, Seattle, Portland). I do NOT race for winning and our track events are not competetive that much, in 3 of the 4 classes you cannot pass unless you are signaled to do so. All I do is for fun and to improve my driving, so my needs are not to win races but to have a setup that is livable on the street, and good enough to keep me on track when I go to events.

Cool. I would love to do road racing, my car is not competative enough, but I think that would be really sweet. Autocrossing is a rush, but I would like to do some multiple lap stuff as well.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (wolfsburgSLC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wolfsburgSLC* »_
Cool. I would love to do road racing, my car is not competative enough, but I think that would be really sweet. Autocrossing is a rush, but I would like to do some multiple lap stuff as well.

If u were in Washington or Portland, you could have attended our club events. Well, I guess you can still do it, if you're willing to drive from Utah!







We always have people from Washington, Portland who attend our events.


----------



## wickGLIguy (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (alexb75)*

I'm new on this thread, so i may sound very uninformed. But what do you think would be a good setting for my koni's on my 2002 jetta. I have h&r sport springs, which lower the car about 1.5 inches. I want a fairly stiff ride but not ridiculously uncomfortable stiff. The front i know i can adjust but i'd kinda like to get the rears set good right off the bat. Also, is it hard to install these springs? should i just get a shop to do it?


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: 6A. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions (Ceilidh)*

I have ben reading, with great interest, Ceilidh (Winston) postings and have found them very informatiave http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif as I will be installing adjustable Konis and a set of 20AE springs on my 2003 GTI in the next few months.
In regards to adjustment of the Koni shock damping, I think we need to keep in mind the context of Ceilidh's comments as they relate to the 15" 195/65 tires/wheels he has on his car. For example, my GTI has the optional OE VW 17" wheels and 225/45-17 high performance all season tires (Conti Extreme Contacts in my case) and I would expect (think) that the different (greater) weight and weight distribution of my wheels and tires (greater rotational mass away from the drive axis than on a 15" wheel tire set-up) would mean that slightly greater damping would be required for the Koni's on my car as opposed to Ceilidh's car.
I'm not 100% sure about all this and would be interested to hear what other folks have to say. My thanks to all who have posted on this thread, I have found it very informative.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (wickGLIguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wickGLIguy* »_...what do you think would be a good setting for my koni's on my 2002 jetta. I have h&r sport springs, which lower the car about 1.5 inches. I want a fairly stiff ride but not ridiculously uncomfortable stiff. The front i know i can adjust but i'd kinda like to get the rears set good right off the bat. Also, is it hard to install these springs? should i just get a shop to do it?

wickgli,
I'm afraid I haven't a clue(!). One thing that Peter and I are trying to do with this thread is to put up data so that others can make educated guesses, but the problem with shocks is that they really seem to have a mind of their own, and goodness knows what will work with any one setup. All one can say is that if your springs are close to stock rate, try something close to what's on my car; if your rates are closer to Shine, then start closer to Peter's. But really, there's very little we can say without actually trying it out -- I'm afraid you'll likely find yourself experimenting a bit (sorry!).
Peter, do you have any thoughts here?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: 6A. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions (RichB)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RichB* »_.....I will be installing adjustable Konis and a set of 20AE springs on my 2003 GTI in the next few months.
In regards to adjustment of the Koni shock damping......my GTI has the optional OE VW 17" wheels and 225/45-17 high performance all season tires (Conti Extreme Contacts in my case) and I would expect (think) that the different (greater) weight and weight distribution of my wheels and tires (greater rotational mass away from the drive axis than on a 15" wheel tire set-up) would mean that slightly greater damping would be required for the Koni's on my car as opposed to Ceilidh's car.

Hello RichB,
Do you like your Contis?








In addition to the heavier wheels, will not your car also have higher spring rates than stock GTI? If so, that would point towards stiffer damping as well.


----------



## wickGLIguy (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: 6A. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions (Ceilidh)*

Ceilidh, thanks for your input. The h&r sports are stiffer than stocks, so i'm guessing i'll be closer to peter's specs. If there's anyone on here using koni yellows with H&R sports your input would be much appreciated! Thanks, and by the way this thread rocks, it has been so informative to me. Keep it up.


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: 6A. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Do you like your Contis?










I'm really enjoying them... my car came with the Michelin Pilot XGTH4 which have a rather soft sidewall and numerous complaints about sidewall bubbles and other complaints, so I replaced them right away with the Conti's. The Conti's might not have the same ultimate grip as the OE Michelin's, but road feel and turn in is better (stiffer sidewall). The ride is not as cushy as the Michelins, but I'm less worried about wheel and tire damage. It's also nice to know that I can use them in the snow (carefully) if I have to (the GTI sits in the garage most of the winter). When funds allow I do plan on getting a lighter 17" wheel/high performance tire combo for summer (fun) use only.

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
In addition to the heavier wheels, will not your car also have higher spring rates than stock GTI? If so, that would point towards stiffer damping as well.

I forgot about that!














I would think you are correct. The 20AE springs are a bit stiffer than those on my GTI so I will need to compensate for that as well.







Thank you for pointing that out. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (Ceilidh)*

Hi everyone....... I am writing off-line some long comments on the remarkable findings Winston described on this long page and am waiting to find some time to complete the whole post, so this is why I am keeping quiet and will keep quiet until find the time (so busy lately). There is really a lot to be said because his experiments have proved a lot of theories and a lot of guesses we have done in the past. I hope I will find the time soon and complete my part, but before that, to the specific question "wickGLIguy" had: 
I wish so much I could help you with possible settings for your package, but whatever I say will be pure guess, so, worth almost noting to you. When I started these experiments, the goal was to try to find some sort of logic with which these shocks can be adjusted for various situations, or various spring rates, etc...... All I found is that if there is logic - it is not something linear, neither predictable....but I was not sure. Now, Winston with all of the above written simply gave confirmation that we were right in thinking that these are not predictable (or not so logically predictable by the average user like me) because his "sweet sports" are very different than mine, which means only one thing - every single spring mounted to our cars changes the whole music entirely and whatever you have found before has to be forgotten and the game starts again.... this of course, if you want to find the "sweet spot". If you have room for tolerances, then perhaps your margin is wider than ours, so you can be happy with less..... But anyway, there are few things I can try to say and I hope it will help you some...... I once had H&R Sport and found those to be not-so-stiff springs. I never had ride quality complains, even those were used with Bilstein Sports. I think with Koni Yellow you have even better chances to get the combination right and have good handling (but do not expect miracles, those are really not super performance springs!) and very good comfort, specially if you are on 15 to 16" wheels/tires. You said "I want a fairly stiff ride...." so if that is really the case, you could try as first step to put the rears on 1 full turn (about 50% stiff) and see how you like it. Do not forget to then try for several days variety of Front settings, to try to match the rears and have "sweet spot" if there is one for 50% rear....... If you really can't stand the ride, then go to 25 stiff (about 1/2 turn) and try variety of front settings again........ If you really do not mind firm ride, I am pretty sure you will find your cake somewhere in there. At least it is a good beginning.







And od not forget to fully warm the shocks (drive at least few miles after overnight stop) before you do evaluation - those are quiet stiff in early mornings for the first few miles, specially if it si cold out there, and can mislead you big time.... hope this helps some.


----------



## wickGLIguy (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (pyce)*

Wow, what a reply! Thanks Pyce







Thank you so much! This definately gives me a very good start. Just so you know though i am riding on 17" rims with 225 series tires. .. so that will make it a bit more firm than with 15's or 16's. But i think i will set it at about 3/4 turn to start out with, see how that works. BTW are they hard to install? I'm no mechanic but have a little experience with this type of thing.


----------



## GrEeEeN1.8T (Aug 22, 2003)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (wickGLIguy)*

Bump so I can find this thread from another computer in 10 minutes.


----------



## GrEeEeN1.8T (Aug 22, 2003)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (GrEeEeN1.8T)*

All I can say is WOW. I did not read the entire post but I read a fair amount of it. Extremely informative. Good work guys. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring .......*

Just put the new 150 lb Rear Shine spring in the car. It is too late in the night to go for wild drive, but managed about 5-10 miles in the neighborhood and the first impression is that comfort is almost like with the Stock rear, which pleases me very much! The roads I drove on are not bad to begin with, so we have ot wait for my morning 50 miles commute for more on this...... The ride height is almost carbon copy of the old Full Shine with the 200 lb rear spring (read: perfectly leveled car if you measure under the doors) I will give it a day and measure again for more accurate numbers. Hope i snot going to go lower than this in a few days..... As for handling, the very first feeling is that the car somehow responds better to steering input and overall feels like if you "up" the rear shock's rebound by another 20 to 30% (read: noticeably, but not dramatic, better turn in). It feels like the whole car got slight upgrade in tires - basically feels less "slippery", with less delay, when zooming around........ I would stop here as I did not had time, neither opportunity to notice more than this. Planning to go through the mountains tomorrow, so we have more info ASAP. Took some pictures too (of all the springs I have put together) so will post tomorrow. Good night


----------



## mhskateboarder (Oct 6, 2003)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Ride Comfort (GrEeEeN1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GrEeEeN1.8T* »_All I can say is WOW. I did not read the entire post but I read a fair amount of it. Extremely informative. Good work guys. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: 6B. Konis on Stock Suspension: Handling Impressions, 2nd Half*

Hi Peter,
And, at last, here's the second half of the Handling Impressions. With this installment, the Konis on Stock Suspension report finally (mercifully?) draws to a close.








(The only caveat is that I never had time to try 1 turn (360 degrees) on the rear, as Peter has done on his car; if I ever get around to trying that, I'll post a report...)
Alex, after this post I need to take a short break(!), but I haven't forgetten your question about what gives a "cornering on rails" feeling, and I still want to try explaining the handling principles behind the stock suspension. So although it might be a while, we'll get to those points soon enough. Thanks for your patience!
- W
TEXT: (Handling Impressions, 2nd Half)
6b. Handling Findings (continued)

Reduction in Roll
Ok, here we start getting into the less-expected things. This first one is something I noticed when I first installed the rear Konis (with stock fronts), but it seemed so bizarre that I thought I was imagining things or misremembering what the full stock car was like. But then Peter reported the same observation when he began playing with shock adjustments on his half-Shine car. And so when I put in the front Konis and started adjusting them, I paid special attention to the phenomenon, and here I've seen it again:
****!!
With improved damping, either the car rolls less in corners, or else there's some psychological effect that's so strong it's simply amazing.
****!!
Part of this (perceived?) behaviour is entirely logical and expected: for one thing, it's not always in effect. On fast, highway-style curves, the car rolls the same amount as before, only the stability is much higher as the chassis is not floating and heaving, or bouncing around because of bumps. Conversely, on the sharpest, slowest city-street style corners, where the car never really hits steady state (it rolls and rolls on its way into the corner, and then flattens and flattens on its way back out), the you'd expect the Konis to reduce the peak roll and the speed of roll-increase, and here the car naturally rolls less. All that makes sense.
The part that makes me think I'm imagining things is what happens on the medium corners -- the ones where there's a definite turn-in phase, but where the corner is long enough for the car to take a set (i.e., to hit steady state) before corner exit. On these corners, the car simply feels like it rolls less -- a lot less -- than before, and increasing the damping flattens the roll out still further.
As this observation would seem to be impossible (once the car hits steady state, the dampers don't really affect roll anymore), I can only think of three possible ways of explaining it, and none of the explanations is terribly convincing even to me. But for what it's worth:
A) Perhaps, because the rate of roll-increase (how rapidly the car leans over to one side) is extremely reduced by the stiffer shocks, the human brain is tricked into thinking the absolute amount of roll is far less than before. Psychologically this is plausible, as a lot of our senses are calibrated to equate suddenness with magnitude (e.g., a sudden loud noise will seem louder than an equally loud noise that ramps up more gradually). Thus perhaps because the Koni-shod car eases into its steady state roll relatively gradually, it feels like the car rides flatter.
I would be happy with this proposition were it not for the fact that my Koni-shod car, besides feeling flatter, also understeers much less than it did with stock shocks. In particular, that troublesome 35 mph corner near my parents' house -- where the stock car would tilt onto its door handles and plow straight forward with scrubbing understeer -- is now comfortably negotiable with very little drama. Also, some of the medium corners have a pretty long steady state section, and if this is a psychological phenomenon, it's a very good psychological phenomenon -- the car really feels more upright, even on these long medium sections.
B) A second possibility is that because turn-in is so much improved, and general handling precision is so enhanced, perhaps I can place the car into a slow or medium corner much more accurately now, and thereby am turning more of the corner into a smooth arc (as opposed to a messy entry followed by a sharp hooking turn). In this scenario the car rolls less because the corner arc is smoother and longer, and the peak g-forces are consequently less at any given speed. I can sort of believe this one too, even though it doesn't say very complimentary things about my ability to pick a cornering line and to compensate for the faults of my machinery. But then again, on some of the medium curves, there's not much choice in cornering line: the road just goes where it goes....
C) The final possibility I can think of is that the stock car, besides rolling much more quickly, actually rolls to an absolutely greater extent for a while because it "overshoots" -- i.e., the momentum of the rolling motion takes the car farther over than the g-forces require, and some time must be spent for it to roll back. Since the Koni-equipped car rolls so much more slowly, there's less overshoot (or none at all, at the higher settings), and the peak roll is less than before. So maybe that's why it feels like it rolls so much less.
Probably the explanation lies in some combination of A + B + C. In any case, whether the sensation is real or psychological, it's strong enough that for those drivers who basically like the stock suspension but wish to reduce the apparent roll (in slow and medium corners), the stiffer shocks might just do the trick without recourse to stiffer springs or bars.

Reduction in Understeer
Take the preceding section, substitute the word "understeer" in place of roll, and you have the next surprising observation. I won't go into it, as the understeer sensations are very similar to those for roll, save to stress that:
1) The (apparent? real?) reduction in understeer is extremely evident and welcome on the slower corners; the effect disappears on the fast curves, and is medium on the medium curves.
2) In terms of calibration: on my car, Rear settings of 0 (full soft) or of 1/4 turn (90 degrees) left more understeer than I liked, which is why I went to 1/2 turn (180 degrees) on the rear. I don't really know what will happen at 3/8 turn (135 degrees -- my hypothetical ideal setting, along with 1/4 turn (90 degree) fronts), but I'm hoping the understeer doesn't return.
A surprising characteristic at my current settings is that on a hard slow or medium corner, I can feel both the front and the rear tires start to sideslip. The car is not really neutral (at that moment it's still pretty forgiving and docile), but the sensation is reminiscent of a neutral car beginning to drift. It's really very fun, and is one of the things that makes the stock suspension enjoyable at sane speeds.

Response to Throttle
Here's the last finding, and the one that was least suspected but most welcome. To explain it, I'll need a quick digression:
Those who have driven old European RWD sedans with skinny tires and moderate power (sounds awful, doesn't it? - But probably f1forkvr6 will know where I'm headed!) can vouch that one of their most endearing characteristics was how they behaved as you rolled onto the throttle in a corner. To drive many of these cars, you had to do most of your braking on the straight, ease smoothly into the corner with a very truncated period of trail braking (people used to argue whether trail braking was even desirable at all), and then ease onto the throttle well before the apex. Generally things felt borderline awful in the moments before you got on the gas, but putting on the power would stabilize everything. And then -- and here's the key part -- as you fed in more power, the front would seem to lock onto the tarmac, the rear would begin to steer the car without overtly sliding or skidding, and you would rocket past the apex and towards the exit with a lively-yet-glued-to-the-road feeling that can best be described as "dancing". Really sweet.
And so, the big surprise of the stock GTI with Konis is that, once the Konis are dialed in, that RWD feeling is actually present in moderate corners (in a very subdued, subtle form, but it's there). Go too hard into a corner or nail the throttle hard like a hooligan, and it'll of course understeer (it's still a FWD car, and if you overload the fronts with engine power, they won't have much traction left for turning), but when you're just tooling along at 5/10 or so, rolling onto the power before the apex will actually tuck the nose in slightly and rocket the car through the corner with that sweet, dancing sensation. Basically, you get a little of the flavour of a 60's Euro RWD sedan, which is kind of nice.
This one I don't have any qualms about reporting. It's all a sham, of course: The 60's RWD cars felt this way because they had traction-free skinny tires that ran at enormous slip angles, and the sensation came about because the RWD power would begin eating up most of the rear traction reserves. When you got to this point, you were starting to flirt with the edge. In contrast, the GTI feels this way when it's nowhere near its cornering or traction limits (at those limits, power leads to understeer), and it's done with clever control of suspension geometry. But I'm pretty sure it's intentional. One of my old textbooks (from the 80s, I think) describes how it's done on a small FWD hatchback, but until now I've never actually felt it on a real FWD car. I also never felt it on my GTI when it was new (perhaps because the stock shocks allow too much floating and bouncing for the sensation to emerge), but it's a real plus with the Konis -- I can enjoy the sensation and work on my RWD "technique" while sedately driving behind minivans.

Handling Sum Up
In my initial Koni installment, I stated that I loved the handling of my car on stock springs and Konis, that it's a set up that would suit many people, but that it also lacks pizzazz when compared with less-mild kits. Hopefully the above will have made those statements clearer.
A stock suspension with Konis is not going to outrun a Shine; it will not have lightning reflexes; it will not have higher cornering limits than stock; it will not allow you to put great gobs of horsepower down onto the road or race/autocross track; and it will not give a rock-solid feeling that you can do anything you want.
But on the other hand, it will roll much less than stock (or at least it will seem to); it will understeer much less than stock (ditto); it will handle more crisply, turn in more emphatically, and stay more stable over bumps; and it will give you feedback and signals that can allow you to have fun with classical race car / 60's Euro sport/sedan techniques at moderate speeds, all while retaining plentiful modern traction reserves to get you out of trouble if something unexpected comes up. Is it the best handling car out there? No. Is it a good setup for those who push to the real limits of their cars? Not really. But for those who wish to enjoy the feel of decent handling at moderate speeds, and who want to have fun while keeping lots of traction & handling reserves for unexpected emergencies or surprises, mounting Konis on a stock suspension is a really good modification to try first, before anything else.
Cheers everybody, and enjoy your weekends!
- Ceilidh


----------



## Dirtydog (Sep 10, 2000)

*Re: Konis on Stock Suspension: Part 2 - The Car and the Settings (pyce)*

I'm putting on Koni yellows with H&R sports Monday. I'll be sure to post my findings. Thinking of going 50% stiff on the rear and adjust the front as needed. I have the Neuspeed rear sway, front sway and front tie bar to help keep things balanced.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Rear Shine 150 lb ....*

Few more things about the new Shine Rear 150 lb spring.....
But first of all, Winston, absolutely outstanding work! Thank you very, very much for the unbelievable dedication, for the time and effort to go through all this and write about it in a such remarkable report! I would like to go in detail through some of the findings you reported, but at the same time I have few things to say about this new rear spring that Dick sent me and had been concentrating on it, so I do not want to lose myself right now. Let me say what I found of the last couple of days and then perhaps next week we can go through some of your findings in more detail.......
So, the new Shine 150 lb. Rear spring had been now for two days on the car, which translates to about 250 miles. Not a lot, but still enough to get a pretty good picture of the following:
1. Dick always says that the Stock rear spring is about 160 lb. as he measured it in several occasions, but at this point I would respectfully disagree. If the new Shine 150 lb rear spring is really 150 lb. (and I have no doubts it is), then my butt says that the stock rear can not be more than 130 - 140 lb. The reason is - there is slight decrease in comfort with he Shine spring over the stock rear. It is so slight, that I do not even know how to quantify it, but with everything else being the same, I lost little bit of comfort on certain, specific roads (where perhaps I never had great comfort with any spring but the stock). The ride overall is very slightly firmer, but the nice part is, it is not bouncier. I would like to remind that the rear Koni are set to 50% stiff (full turn) and that may play some role, but I do not know how much of a role it is. My personal opinion is (and everyone else could feel differently) that on our roads here (SFBA) the 150 lb. is right at the limit where comfort is acceptable. If this new spring was meant for those (like me) who can't stand the ride quality (due to the road conditions) of the 180-200 Shine Rear - then Dick got it absolutely right on the money! It will take little bit longer to do some detailed experiments with variety of rebound settings (front and rear) but my wild guess is that even more comfortable combination could be found via rebound adjustment. The nice part is that with a pretty serious 50% stiff rear and 75% stiff front - the car is right where I would call it decent ride, firm but still pleasant to drive for hours on not-so-good roads. Next week I will try to play with rebound and see what (if) gives and takes. Also the 16" wheel/tires have to go in there and see how does the comfort change. Here is a picture of the few springs we have tried so far:









2. The ride heights did not change for the last two days (no sagging like we had with he H&R O.E. spring) but for the most accurate numbers I have to go back to the 16" tires, as my 15" are kind of shorter sidewall, so the numbers (floor to wheel arc) maybe little bit off if taken tonight. It is very "Shine" look thought. If measurements are taken from below the doors to the floor, it is almost dead leveled. I can absolutely live with it, I even like it this way, but suspect that many may not be attracted...... Here is a picture of how the car looks like:









3. The Buffers (Bumpstops) are again an important part of the equation. This time we knew what to straight from the beginning (







) and the "shortened" buffers from few months ago were reintroduced as to let the spring work on her own. This time I took even a picture, so more people would get convinced that lowering at about 1" and below puts them right on the buffers. Now, whether this was meant to be this way or not, from different manufacturers, is something we are not going to debate on this topic. Fact is, the stock buffers are too long when used with lowering springs and therefore they would add an unpredictable (because unknown), very progressive rate to the spring employed below. It is up to everyone, I guess, to decide what to do with theirs. Once I am done with springs, I will either use the shorter (337) version or perhaps make a custom piece by gluing few of the remaining from mine. Fact is, in the way it is cut now (see picture below) I have not experienced any bottoming so far. I understand what you see on the pix is not the ideal situation, but this is just for the experiments. We can't afford to be confused by buffer's stiffness when evaluating different springs.....









4. As for handling, here is where the big surprise comes....... It is very interesting to see how understeer can be reduced by simply increasing the springs rate on the rear. Yes, you all know that form the theory, but it is very interesting to quantify it. But the even more interesting part is that the relation between comfort and handling is not quiet linear. I mean, with this new spring we lost little bit of comfort on specific road surfaces, but at the same time gained significantly more handling capabilities! I know it may sound too good to be true, but perhaps there is some sort of "sweet spot" even in spring rates (front to rear) relation!? And the reason I am saying so is because the car really feels like on different level. It almost feels like I had installed a moderate sway bar in the rear, but I have not! The turn in is really good, noticeably better than what I had with Shine Front - Stock Rear. Even more, not only turns in nicely, but it holds the given radius much better. Example here: Quick mountain curve, but not short, more than 90 degree of a turn...... you turn the wheel with the Shine-Stock (before) and the car goes in nicely, but then by the middle of the curve (if speed is slowly increasing) a small lift or perhaps steering correction (closing more) is needed as to prevent the front from thinking of going away...... Today, Shine-Shine, same curve at same speed, the lift and/or correction is snot longer needed. Even more, at certain point the rear finally shows that actually exists somewhere there behind and even gives the feeling that will (eventually) even think of sliding out if acceleration stops for a moment. Now, this said, I do not want to give the idea that there is "oversteering" because there is none. Tried even to brake in the middle of pretty close curve, with going downhill too, and in that occasion the rear feels like lifting and going somewhere, but actually does not go. Very safe, very nice! It gives just the right amount of feeling that you are driving a four wheels vehicle, not two fronts and nothing on the rear like before. I would dare to call it "very balanced" setup, where the front still says the final word, but the rear is right there too, willing to work in synchrony. It is kind of going back to school, trying to re-learn how to approach curves and how much steering input to give, because the car now goes in the curve with less steering turn and it also needs less steering turn to hold the ideal line through the curve. It is actually very nice to upgrade just the rear springs as to notice how much only this modification does to the whole picture. The car is quick, pretty quick! The biggest improvements ar in the slow and medium speed curves, like city and mountain driving. There is improvement on the long and very fast on and off ramps too, but it is not that dramatic. Must also say that those on and off ramps are all with very uneven surface and this may be part of the reason I do not feel going over certain speeds. Where the roads gets better, the speed is considerably higher than before. I would call it, overall, a very good improvement in handling dynamics with losing very little comfort as a price for that. 
If there is a "sweet spot" in this, then I guess Dick got it right there, at least for my taste







I do not know what is this setup going to be called, but if Dick does not like the word "Lite" then perhaps this could be the "Shine Stage One", or perhaps "Shine for Beginners", because beside the look, there is a lot (when driving) that gives the same feeling when Full Shine is driven. The front spring is the same 225 lb spring, that does a lot more than what many believe. I know many would disagree with me, but from all these experiments done, I have the feeling that the front spring is way more important (on our cars!) than the rear. I mean, with the absolutely right-on-the-money Front Shine 225, you can almost afford to go plus/minus 30 - 40 lb on the rears and still have the situation under control. As for this new combination (225F - 150R) I really believe is a great way for not so experienced folks (like me) to have the first, on the mild side, approach to what is the more capable Full Shine Kit (225F - 200R/180R - RSB). I even suspect that many people can be actually faster with the "lighter" setup, specially on not smooth curvy roads, because the car is much easier to drive, more predictable and most of all, much easier to "fix a mistake" in the middle of a corner. I still believe to drive fast Full Shine Kit takes some skills and it is not for everyone. To drive fast the 150 lb rear spring with no sway bar is much easier task, therefore the total speed of going through a corner may actually be even higher at the end. I am not talking about pro drivers here, neither talking about smooth track........
Dick, if you ever decide to make the spring slightly taller, let's say 0,3 to 0,5 inch taller than this one - let me know, I would love to try it! Other than that, I thank you very much, because you are the first vendor I ever met, who took the time to talk to me, who took us in consideration and finally here we are, with a product I (and hope many others) have been looking for! It works really well, so well that I think you have tested it and tested it for weeks and months and only because you found it good, you let us having it now, so we can start to explore








Everybody, have a great weekend.....more details to follow sometime soon


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
Great writeup(!), and really looking forward to hearing more!
Two quick (related) things:
1) In addition to spring stiffness, lowering can also play a role in some of the effects you describe. And so...
2) Could you please measure & post the distance from your hub centers to the bottom edge of your fender lips? (i.e., measure not from the ground to the lip of the wheel well, but from the center of the wheels to the lip) That distance is generally a safer one to use in general, as it's independent of tire pressure and brand, and in any event I can compare it to what I have on my stock springs front & rear. Thank you, and thanks again for the posts!
- Winston


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*

Great post Peter. But a softer rear than Shine was always there with Neuspeed Sofsport at 160! So, not sure what's so special with this new Shine 150 since it's similar to Sofsport.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (alexb75)*

Winston, I actually think good part of the whole improvement comes from the lowering of the rear! And then the slight increase in spring rate help some too. The very interesting part is that (if you remember) in the past I had comfort issues with lowering the rear and now I no longer have this. The only difference between then and now is I no longer have the RSB, so I guess the stiff bar was taking toll somehow. I will measure the distances you required, I do agree with you, they are safer as I am now on lower profile tires and this changes things with 0,2-0,3 inches.....
Alex, I guess you are right, maybe there is nothing special with the new spring, but perhaps is combination (read above my reply to Winston) of lowering AND spot-on spring rate. I must say also, I have never driven Neuspeed SofSport equipped car, so I do not know how ot compare them. I only know people here often say that there is nothing Soft in the SofSport, but I can't say this for the Shine 150 lb because it is not uncomfortable. Perhaps is combination of more than what I can even imagine..... Hope we will find out more soon


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*

Winston, got the measurements for you:
15" 1/4 Front
13" 3/4 Rear
It is not super scientific, but it is close.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*

So, that goes with 0.5" raise upfront and 1.0" drop in rear Shine claims, right?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Winston, got the measurements for you:
15" 1/4 Front
13" 3/4 Rear
It is not super scientific, but it is close. 

Thanks Peter! I'll go measure my car later today (it's parked 2 blocks away, so I can't just pop out to the driveway!), and then we can confirm Alex's 0.5" up/ 1" down.
On a side note, the day you photographed your Jetta in the bright California sun, it was snowing hard here --- all melted now, but this is the time of year we Bostonians wish we were just a little farther south.








- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Rear Shine 150 lb .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Winston, got the measurements for you:
15" 1/4 Front
13" 3/4 Rear
It is not super scientific, but it is close. 

Hello again,
Well, I decided to run out before the car commuters all left for the day -- here are the measurements for the Golfs and Jettas on my street. (Note: unless otherwise noted, all the measurements are for the driver's side; the passenger sides are generally about a 1/2" lower, as there's an enormous crown to the roads here.)
My GTI 1.8T:
F 15"
R 14 5/8"
Golf 2.0
F 15"
R 15 3/4"
Golf 2.0
R Passenger's side 15" (driver arrived and drove off after 1st measurement)
Jetta VR6
F 14 1/2"
R 14 5/8"
Jetta 1.8T
F 14 1/2"
R 15"
If anyone wants to go to a VW dealer's lot and make a more scientific measurement, that'd be helpful(!) - I received a lot of suspicious glares while taking the above (it would only have been a matter of time before someone called the police), which is why I didn't do 4-wheels-and-average...








Anyway, to repeat Peter's measurement of Shine Front/ 150lb Rear:
15" 1/4 Front
13" 3/4 Rear
Compare to my GTI 1.8T, this time with left & right averaged out:
14 3/4" Front
14 1/2" Rear
So Alex, yes, the Shine picks up the front by 1/2", and the rear (at least this 150 lb/in rear) drops by 3/4" relative to GTI 1.8T, but probably around 1 1/4" for a 2.0.
As for the rest of the measurements, it sort of looks like there's two basic ride heights: a roughly 15" (driver's side on my crowned Boston street), and a roughly 14 1/2" (ditto). The 2.0's sit on the higher spring front and back; my early (2000) GTI 1.8 has the lower height at the rear; the Jetta 1.8T has the lower height at the front; and the Jetta VR6 has the lower height front and rear. But again, these measurements are pretty rough.
Anyway Peter, assuming your car has risen 1/2" at the front and dropped 1 1/4" at the rear, I've got some more measurements for you:
Height of rear roll center:
8 3/4"
Ratio of rear roll center drop to ride height drop:
0.29 : 1
Assumed F/R weight distribution of your Jetta w/full gas tank, random stuff in trunk, etc.: 60:40 / F:R
Drop in CG from lowering rear 1 1/4"
(1.25")*(0.40) = 0.6"
Drop in rear roll center from lowering rear 1 1/4"
(1 - 0.29)*(1.25") = 0.89"
Drop in roll axis at longitudinal location of CG:
(0.89")*(.40) = 0.35"
Decrease in roll couple (lever arm, actually) from lowering rear 1 1/4"
(0.6") - (0.35") = 0.25"
Of course, the above is meaningless if we don't know how big the roll lever arm was initially -- but we can take a rough guess:
Assumed height of stock CG: 20" (rough ballpark for small passenger sedans)
Assumed front roll center height: 3" (wild guess!)
Measured rear roll center height: 8.75" (center of twist beam)
Resulting height of roll axis at CG: 5.3"
Resulting stock lever arm for roll: 20" - 5.3" = ~15"
Therefore reduction in roll from lowering rear 1 1/4":
.....about 2% (!!!)

So, the lowering of the rear, while helping overall roadholding from dropping your CG by .6" (about 3%), is reducing your roll by 2%. These are pretty small numbers(!) -- unless I've made a silly calculation error somewhere (quite possible, as I'm moving fast) it would seem that your handling improvements will likely be coming from a spring rate increase (unless the increased rear toe-in from lowering is somehow having an effect....). Interesting. Have to start work now -- please keep us posted!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*

Winston, Thanks for the time and dedication on those calculations! I do not know whether you are right or wrong, but I doubt that the improvement in my case is around 2%, it feels significantly more than that. I guess if it was about 2-3% - I would not be able to even notice it. But here is something I am going to say, that may definitely help you (or perhaps confuse us even more!) to analyze this situation ...... If you remember, at certain point I had the 337 Rear springs in there, with the Koni Rear set at 50% (full turn) and if you remember, I was describing it as a very nice feeling when turning in, like someone holds and even pulls down the rear inner corner (even if we know it was not really pulled down, it was actually still lifting, but much slower, so the effect) and that was with the Shine bar in. Then I had some comfort issues and put the Stock Rears in there, but without changing the rebound for a day. Well, I remember very well, the "pull-down" effect while turning in was much less, like if we reduce the rebound almost half way! ....... So, here is basically how it feels (Now, I know this does not make sense, but I am trying to describe a feel!) ....It is like the Rear Koni work differently when different length of the shaft is used. The full stroke of the Koni Rear is about 9 inches. With the few springs I tried, they work at the 4,5 to 5,5 inch range (around mid stroke). It really feels (FEELS ONLY! may not be true at all) like when the Koni work around the 4-th inch of length (lower spring) they provide different dynamics than when they work around the 5-th inch of length (taller spring). I am 99% sure it is not true as I had been told hundred times the shocks are linear, but this is how it feels. Are we really sure the Konis completely linear through the entire stroke? Because of they are not, then everything gets easier to explain and we would know for sure why the "softer" new Shine 150 lb spring makes the car feel (in curve) like on "stiffer" spring, while delivering great, almost unvaried comfort from Stock rear spring.......... Something tells me it does not make sense, but felt like saying, it is in my mind so why not to speak of it








The other interesting part is, yes, it is very sunny here and very hot. We are having temps above 80 for few days in a row, it is full blown summer. I am not saying this to make you feel bad, but interestingly enough, the high temps came together with the install of the Shine 150lb rear. Why am I saying this? ..... On my car, for the entire time I owned it and no matter which tires and suspension I had in it - when the weather is hot I always had much better comfort! To me it feels like reducing tire pressure by 5-6 PSI. The same gain in comfort I get every time is hot........ I can't really explain this in details, I know the shocks are always "softer" when hot, but it feels like the gain in hot weather is even more than when riding on warm shocks........ So, perhaps, I have to wait to cool down (next week they said) and see how that goes, as to have final word for the Shine 150 lb comfort. At the moment is simply fantastic!
More later, ciao!


----------



## Shad (Feb 8, 2003)

I'm running H&R Sports and Koni Sports as suspension, and i'm still trying to find a good setup.
At a first moment I tried the shocks at full soft. Trust me, that's horrible. No, horrible is not enough to describe. The first chance I had I changed the dampening.
Then I dialed the rear shocks to 440° (1 1/4 turn), and started the fronts with 180°. The rear is still a bit bouncy, but at least I'm closer to a good match. I can't say much about the front since one of my dampers has its adjusting mecanism locked (I'll get a replacement soon), but one soft shock is not as terrible as it seems.
Next step is set rears at 540° and start dialing fronts at 360°. I think that's pretty close to the match I want. I'll write my impressions.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Shad)*

hey Shad, I know what u mean. Most people on H&R sport, or Neuspeed have terrible experience at full-soft, it's just way underdamped for those stiffer springs, feels like stock shocks on stiffer springs (bouncy). 
I think the least you can have is 1/4 to 3/4 stiff (not sure how many turns).


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*

Hello Peter,
Wow. This is getting confusing. I'm not absolutely certain about the Konis being position-independent, as I've never seen one taken apart, but no, I've never heard anything either to imply that they would be. There are some weirdnesses that can occur right at the limits of compression travel, but you're not operating in that range.....
I'm wondering though: have you ever had a chance to try an aftermarket spring when you did NOT have the stiff Shine bar in place at the rear? I only came onto this forum in December, and by that time you already had a full Shine setup, and were starting to experiment with Konis -- before that, did you ever run stiff rear springs with just the stock bar? The reason I ask is that many of your comfort issues seemed to go away the day you removed the rear bar, and it could be (if you have not in fact yet tried stiffer springs with the stock bar) that stiffer springs yield a better ride/performance tradeoff than do stiff bars -- that is, maybe your new springs feel so nice because (1) they're stiffer than stock, and so they improve the handling; and (2) they're working in conjunction with the stock bar, which allows for more consistent damper tuning and more independent wheel action than what you experienced earlier (when you still had a stiff bar in place).
There are two experiments/ measurements I can think of that might do a lot to dispel the current mystery, but unfortunately both would require a fair bit of extra work on your part (in other words, everyone would completely understand if you don't do them, and I'll try to think of something less tedious!):
1) The first would be to talk Oldman TDI into sending you back your old 180 lb rear springs for a bit, so that you can try them out with Konis all-around but no rear bar (has Oldman himself tried this combo? I'm afraid I can't remember). That would up your rear rate by 20% while presumably keeping the 150lb ride height, and your impressions there would tell us a lot about what effect the rear spring rate has, independent of all other variables. (In fact, it'd be a little ironic if [Shine all-around Without Bar but With Konis] turned out to be an acceptably comfortable setup!).
1a) (If Oldman is too busy, would Dick Shine consider sending you a 180lb set (perhaps used?) as a temporary loaner?
2) The other measurement will be considerably less fun for you, but 2 major holes in our knowledge are:
(A) what the stiffness of the stock rear spring actually is; and 
(B) what lowering does (if anything) to the effective (installed) wheel rate at the rear.
Unfortunately neither you nor I have the equipment to answer either question (GTITraveler could answer (B), but it'd be a lot of work for him too), but we can get a read on how much stiffer the as-installed 150lb spring is compared to your as-installed stock spring, if you're willing to do a rather tedious experiment. This experiment consists of:
i. accurately measuring the wheel center to fender lip distance on your car with its current 150 lb springs (with rigor: multiple measurements between two marked points (one at the center of the wheel hub, the other on the fender lip), with a controlled and known load (luggage, amount of gas in the tank), bouncing the suspension a few times between measurements to overcome friction, and with L & R averaged, etc.).
ii. putting a controlled, known weight at a fixed point in the trunk or on the rear bumper (having a buddy or two sit on the rear bumper or trunk would work here, so long as they always sit in the same spot), and remeasuring the wheel to lip distance.
iii. repeating steps i and ii with the stock rear spring in place of the 150lb Shine rears.
iv. together, i-iii will tell us whether and how much the rear end has been stiffened by installing the lower 150lb spring.
If you could do the above experiment, it would really help establish whether your improved handling is a result of as-installed wheel rate (raw spring rate, modified by whatever rising-rate geometry is at work in the rear suspension), vs. simple lowering. (e.g., if it turns out the effective as-installed spring rates are identical, then it's all a lowering effect...).
Just so you know, one big question I've been mulling over is the relative importance of spring rate vs. ride height at the rear. If you find that your 150lb springs give you the same effective rate as the stocks, that means that lowering the rear is vitally important for handling performance on this chassis (which makes sense, given that Dick Shine has specified that reverse rake for his SRSS setup). Unfortunately, it'd also mean that I'll have to give up my long term aspirations of finding a stock-ride-height suspension that handles really, really well (it'd also mean that I'd have to spend more time figuring out why the ride height matters so much, as currently the numbers just aren't showing it). Conversely, if you find that the 150lb springs are in fact stiffer (and especially if you find that the 180lb Shines are comfortable w/o bar, but with Konis), then I still have hope that a tall, stock height, moderately-stiffer-than-stock rear spring might be a viable option for people who don't need the full Shine performance.
Anyway, those are current thoughts. Shad, thanks for joining in on the discussion, and we look forward to your findings too. All the best, everyone, and thanks for all the hard work!
- W


_Modified by Ceilidh at 4:45 PM 3-15-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*

Hey peter,
I also always have better comfort in summer, I think it's the tires and the sidewall getting softer or working better in heat, this is specially true for Max-performance summer tires.
I think one thing we didn't take into account is the compression setting on the Konis'. The compression doesn't change with the adjustments and I was told that the compression is fairly higher than stock. So, even at softest setting your shocks compression is pretty high. This makes the ideal spring to go with the shocks something stiffer than stock (my guess), so you might be having a better match with Shine right now. This is why some coilover setups with 200-250 rear springs ride fine! 
Winston also didn't mean that you have 2% handling improvement, but that you get 2% improvement because of lowering and the rest is because of stiffer springs. 
It is also difficult to compare your ride now to your experiences before since rear shine bar makes a huge difference in comfort department.
Cheers,
Al


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (alexb75)*

Excellent points, Alex -- thanks for making them!


_Modified by Ceilidh at 4:50 PM 3-15-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_....Winston also didn't mean that you have 2% handling improvement, but that you get 2% improvement because of lowering and the rest is because of stiffer springs......

Completely agree, in fact this is exactly what I wanted to say, but somehow did not write it well, so I guess it was misunderstood! Thanks for pointing it out!







In little but more detail, what I tried to say is that: If the spring rate (new vs. old) is almost the same, but I feel noticeable improvement in handling, then perhaps the lowering has a lot to do with it..... but if the 2% calculated by Winston is true, then I am sure that the new spring is stiffer than the old, because my improvement is more than 2%. Basically, as I have more the 2% improvement, it could be that the lowering helps some, but the main comes from somewhere else (higher spring rate comes to mind) and perhaps there is even more to it that, but I do not know what it is. Thanks again for pointing this out








As for the Koni's compression, I read somewhere that we basically adjust the rebound, but the compression somehow slightly gets affected too, read: when going up with rebound we slightly go up with compression too, it had something to do with the design inside...... not sure where I read it, perhaps one of you said it here.
Winston, those are great suggestions for experiments! We would have never bee this far without your constant dedication on this topic! I think the best way (in terms of what the value of the result would be) is to do the "known weight in the trunk" method. as I guess the wheel rate is more important than just the spring rate, but correct me if I am wrong. At this point I am also curious to try again the 180 lb Spring. I am also planning to test again the Stock spring for rate (we tested it once and if you remember was something starting from 130 going to 150 then going back to 140 for the first three inches of compression) but I will try again....... The good part of all this is, that no matter what the reasons are - the car is simply great to drive and great for comfort and I am enjoying it very much!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
In little but more detail, what I tried to say is that: If the spring rate (new vs. old) is almost the same, but I feel noticeable improvement in handling, then perhaps the lowering has a lot to do with it..... but if the 2% calculated by Winston is true, then I am sure that the new spring is stiffer than the old, because my improvement is more than 2%. Basically, as I have more the 2% improvement, it could be that the lowering helps some, but the main comes from somewhere else (higher spring rate comes to mind) and perhaps there is even more to it that, but I do not know what it is. Thanks again for pointing this out








As for the Koni's compression, I read somewhere that we basically adjust the rebound, but the compression somehow slightly gets affected too, read: when going up with rebound we slightly go up with compression too, it had something to do with the design inside...... not sure where I read it, perhaps one of you said it here.


By _old _, do you mean which springs? Stock? Stock is no where near 150. 
I also quoted something from Ohland, another shcoks manufacturer, and they said that their shcoks are rebound adjustable, but compression "also" is changed "very little" with the adjustments. Not sure if this is the case for Koni.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (alexb75)*

Alex, yes, by "old" I meant the Stock spring that I had in there for some time...... You are saying it is not any near 150 lb. and I may agree with you, but that is where the confusion comes from, because Dick repeatedly said the stock Rear is about 160 lb. but my butt says otherwise .... unless, again, there is something else we are completely ignoring.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*

No way 160!!! Neuspeed Sport/Sofsport is 160 and people complain it's too stiff.
For all the posts I have seen, rear has been quoted anywhere from 115-130 depending on the color codes. Absolutely NO POST stating above 130.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
....If the spring rate (new vs. old) is almost the same, but I feel noticeable improvement in handling, then perhaps the lowering has a lot to do with it..... but if the 2% calculated by Winston is true, then I am sure that the new spring is stiffer than the old, because my improvement is more than 2%. Basically, as I have more the 2% improvement, it could be that the lowering helps some, but the main comes from somewhere else (higher spring rate comes to mind) and perhaps there is even more to it that, but I do not know what it is. Thanks again for pointing this out








As for the Koni's compression, I read somewhere that we basically adjust the rebound, but the compression somehow slightly gets affected too, read: when going up with rebound we slightly go up with compression too, it had something to do with the design inside...... not sure where I read it, perhaps one of you said it here.
I am also planning to test again the Stock spring for rate (we tested it once and if you remember was something starting from 130 going to 150 then going back to 140 for the first three inches of compression) but I will try again....... 

Hello Peter, Hello Alex!
Actually, I think that I was the one being unclear







, so please allow me to clarify!
1) First off: Peter, it's entirely possible that most or all of the improvement you're seeing is coming from the lowering -- the main point of my little back-of-the-envelope calculation was to show that if there is a benefit coming from the lowering, it's not stemming from a straightforward roll-center / roll-couple change. There are other things that could be at work (e.g., there could be a rising rate built into the geometry of the rear suspension, which I've never tried to quantify), and one of many reasons I'm watching your experiments is to determine how hard I have to think







. For example, if you find that the stock spring is in fact much softer than 150lb, then I'd feel fairly confident that spring rate is behind your recent handling improvement; whereas a discovery that the old vs. new spring rates are fairly equal would definitely send me back to the drawing board(!).
In more general terms, the observations that you (and Alex, and f1forkvr6, and GTItraveler, etc.) make are far more important than my theoretical musings. Theory can be useful for making predictions, and can point the way to further improvements or changes, but ultimately it's the observations that matter. One way to look at it is the relationship that a race driver has with his race engineer: the driver reports a handling quirk/ problem, the engineer uses a theoretical framework to suggest a solution, and then the driver goes back out onto the track to test it out. If the improvement's as predicted, the engineer can use his framework to suggest more changes; but if the improvement's not there or if the effect is different from that predicted, the engineer is forced to modify or scrap his framework to come up with something better.
So please just keep reporting (you're doing a fantastic job!), and don't worry if I can't understand how lowering is making such a big difference; if the old vs. new spring rates turn out to be similar, it's my "job" to figure out why!
2) Regarding compression damping: I don't think it was me who reported non-constant compression when rebound adjustments are made, but yes I've heard credible sources complain about the difficulty of keeping compression and rebound adjustments independent; as Alex points out, the adjustment mechanism (basically a stack of washers with an adjustable preload) tends to alter the compression curve when rebound is adjusted. I don't know how big the effect is, however.
3) Finally, as for the spring experiments: yes, wheel rate is ultimately what matters -- but if you can determine the spring rates as well, that would be very useful!! (If we know both the spring rates and the as-installed wheel rates, we can determine how big (if any) is the rising-rate geometry built into the rear suspension.)
A couple of cautions, however: if you do measure the spring rates, you'd ideally do it at near installed loads (i.e., at about 600 lbs, not at 0, 100, 200 lbs). Manufacturing tolerances and limitations are such that often there's an accidental / weak progressive aspect to a coil spring right at the very lightest of loads (it depends on how the end coils are ground and bent; often the last 1/4 coil or so doesn't sit properly until a little load is imposed), and that can throw the initial measurement off. The other caution is that measuring a spring near installed-load can be pretty dangerous if the spring takes flight, so that might not be an option after all (!).
4) Now, on a totally different note, here's a question for the two of you: all these people who report "There's nothing 'soft' about the Sofsport suspension" -- have any of them been on Konis, without a rear antiroll bar, or have they all been on Bilsteins and/or with 25mm or 28mm rear bars? The reason I ask is that Peter's current setup is not that different in spring rate from what Neuspeed publishes for its Sofsport: Sofsport's supposed to be 220 F / 160 R, while Peter's is currently at 225 F / 150 R, and 10 lbs (7%) difference at the rear is just not that huge. Or is it possible that the people complaining about their Sofsports are bouncing on their bump stops?
The mystery deepens -- though the main thing is that Peter's car is handling and riding really well!
- W


----------



## improvius (Mar 6, 2001)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
4) Now, on a totally different note, here's a question for the two of you: all these people who report "There's nothing 'soft' about the Sofsport suspension" -- have any of them been on Konis, without a rear antiroll bar, or have they all been on Bilsteins and/or with 25mm or 28mm rear bars? The reason I ask is that Peter's current setup is not that different in spring rate from what Neuspeed publishes for its Sofsport: Sofsport's supposed to be 220 F / 160 R, while Peter's is currently at 225 F / 150 R, and 10 lbs (7%) difference at the rear is just not that huge. Or is it possible that the people complaining about their Sofsports are bouncing on their bump stops?

I'm in the middle of deciding what to do with my rear SofSports. I have a 2001 GTI 1.8T. Currently 15" stock wheels with M3 winter sport tires. I have the Bilstein HDs front and rear. I spent about a week driving around with SofSports in front and stock sports in the rear. The ride was VERY smooth. I could feel the bumps in the road, but I had very little bounce in the cabin. The ride was more firm than stock, but had almost none of the bounce that you get when going over bumps with the stock suspension. Cornering was greatly improved, and much more predictable over stock.
I switched the rear to the SofSports 3 days ago. The ride is definitely less pleasant than it was with the stock sport springs. Handling seems a bit better. There is a bit less body roll, and I think a bit less understeer. But honestly, I will probably go back to the stock sports, as I prefer the smoother ride. With the SofSport rears, I am definitely getting bounced around more than I like.
Honestly, the SofSports really aren't that bad. If I hadn't felt how good the ride could be by leaving the stock rear springs, I probably would be very happy with the Sofsports instead. But having tried both, I feel like I will enjoy the significantly improved comfort (better than stock, even, IMO) over the increased performance. Honestly, this is a daily driver and not a track car, so I don't see myself really needing that extra bit of performance.
Now, maybe I am riding on bumpstops. I admit it seems unlikely given how close the spring heights are. But before I swap back, I guess I can try the plastic tie trick to see if they are hitting.
-Imp


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (improvius)*

Guys, I have to immediately fly to Europe and it may happen that I will be there for more than a week. Just did not want to disappear without notice........ you keep the outstanding work, I hope to join you again soon.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (improvius)*

The people who complain about the ride with the SofSports HAVE to be on Bilsteins. There is a huge difference in ride between Koni and Bilstein.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The New Shine Rear 150 lb Spring ....... (tyrolkid)*

Ok guys, I just found one the most interesting posts in a long time.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...68454
This is a great writeup on what combination of springs/swaybars work for Autocrossing. Based on this writeup a whole lot of different setups work as long as it's done right. Like some people achieve excellent handling with arms way passed parallel. This is mostly for race/AutoX but the experiences can help us out too. 
Two http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to Mhyrr for a non-biased write up.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (1)*

Hello Everyone,
Some more experiments will be going on over the next few weeks, but as it might be a little while before the data comes in, we thought this might be a good time to post up some of the handling/ suspension theory that seems to apply to the Golf/Jetta IV.
We'll take our time doing this. There's enough confusion out there already that it'd be better to write a fair bit and be complete, than to be concise and misunderstood (in any case, this thread has turned into a bit of a bookworm club, and short & punchy matters less here than it does elsewhere!).
Although we'll meander, the general format will be as follows: we'll first get a few definitions down & set the scene; then we'll go into how and why the stock suspension works the way it does (because without understanding that first, it's hard to know how to modify things); maybe after that we'll seque into some of the setups that Alexb75 has been reporting on; and finally we'll wind up on Peter's current setup, and explain why he finds it so successful.
Ok? So if you're ready, put on your bedroom slippers, pull up a pipe & chair, set the family hounds on the carpet in front of the fireplace, and let's meander....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (2 -- Over/Understeer)*

First off, some definitions and scene-setting. Let's agree on some terms for over-steer, under-steer, & neutrality, and after that we'll put ourselves into different driver categories.
Under/Oversteer (mostly for the neophytes following along):
These terms are applied in so many ways by so many people ("My car is absolutely neutral!"; "No it isn't -- it oversteers like death!"; etc.), that we need to agree on a 
definition.
The basic confusion arises because whether a car over or understeers in a given situation is not the same as whether a car is essentially an oversteering, understeering, or neutral vehicle. "Huh?", you ask? If that makes no sense to you, let's dive in and consider what it means for a car to be inherently neutral, understeering, or oversteering:
A) The strictest definition, which we will NOT use, comes from vehicle dynamics: a neutral car will not respond to any perturbations; an oversteering car will self-excite following a mild perturbation, and an understeering car will damp the perturbations out. Or in slightly plainer English: if a car driving in a straight line on a level road is suddenly pushed sideways by a temporary gust of wind, a neutral car will merely step sideways, an understeering car will turn slightly away from the wind, then run in a straight line after the wind has stopped, and an oversteering car will first turn into the wind, and then will continue to turn in that direction (even after the gust has passed) in a tighter and tighter arc until finally it spins off the road.
As nobody in his right mind would intentionally drive the above-mentioned "oversteering" car on a public road, this particular definition is useless to us, and we won't use it (I mention it only because it occasionally shows up in some textbooks, and you might come across it if you do a lot of background reading).
B) Instead, we'll use a less strict definition (one that is nonetheless still stricter than what you'll often see on the forums) -- this one is based on behaviour in a turn. To wit:
A "neutral" car is one that requires the same steering wheel angle on a constant-radius, constant speed turn, regardless of speed. That is, if you have to hold the steering wheel at a 60 degree angle to negotiate a constant curve at 40 mph, you can still hold it at 60 degrees to take the same curve at 70 mph (for the more experienced guys reading along, assume it's an AWD car with a 50:50 torque split and 50:50 weight distribution, and neglect aerodynamic forces; for everyone else, just be happy







).
An "understeering" car is one where faster speeds require more steering angle: if you needed to turn the wheel 60 degrees at 40 mph, you need to turn it 65 or 70 degrees at 70 mph.
An "oversteering" car requires less steering angle the higher the speed: if you needed 60 degrees of steering wheel at 40 mph, maybe you need only 45 degrees at 70 mph.
Together, the above concepts give you the familiar sensations of having to turn the wheel harder when you've gone into a turn too fast (understeer), or of having to correct for the back end "coming around/ stepping out" with too much speed (oversteer). Sounds simple, right?
Okay, now here's where (for perhaps some of the new people) it gets a little complicated: a car that is set up to be "neutral" (under the above definition) is hardly ever neutral in any given corner; instead, it is almost always understeering or oversteering, depending upon what the driver is doing, what the corner is like, and which part of the corner the car is currently in.
For example, if the car is decelerating, then weight is shifted onto the front tires, which gives them more grip -- and off the back tires, which reduces grip at the rear. With more grip at the front than at the rear, the "neutral" car will now oversteer. Conversely, if the car is accelerating, weight and grip are transferred rearwards, and the supposedly "neutral" car now starts understeering.
Add drive torque effects, and things get stranger: for a RWD car, if you apply moderate power in a turn, the weight shifts rearwards, and any incipient oversteer disappears; but apply a lot of power, and the power uses up most of the rear grip, leaving less for cornering traction, and oversteer comes back. And then you can add elevation changes: going uphill, there's more weight on the rear tires, and the "neutral" car tends towards understeer; go downhill (as in the infamous Corkscrew at Laguna Seca), and the rear tires are unloaded, and the car wants to oversteer.
Why Neutral is Good
The upshot is that a neutral car can be made to over- or under-steer at the will of an experienced driver -- which is why true race cars (and autocross cars) are typically set up to be very close to neutral. Some drivers like to be slightly on the oversteering side of neutral (which makes the car "edgier" and quicker turning), whilst others prefer a hint of understeer (which improves stability and forgiveness), but the basic setup does not stray far from the neutral condition.
To see how neutrality can be desirable, consider an autocrosser screaming towards a pylon: he brakes hard, throwing weight onto the front wheels, which improves turn-in and brings the back end around in an oversteering near-skid (autocrossers like to talk about "rotation" about the cones); once in the corner, he then applies power, which kills the oversteer in time to prevent a spin (neutrality); and then more power on corner exit forces the nose to drift wide (understeer), which points him in the right direction for the short run to the next cone. Pretty nifty, eh?
Why Neutral is Bad
If you're interested in a truly neutral car, there are several extremely gifted drivers on this forum who can advise you how to get one and use one. However, I (Ceilidh) once had a truly neutral car as a daily driver, and it almost killed me; as a result of that and other experiences, I think most people (including myself) are better off with an inherently understeering car if the car's to be used on public roads -- and here's why:
Imagine you're in a close-to-neutral car, screaming around a corner at a speed that's near enough to the limit to be interesting and fun. You come around the corner, and then you discover that a dog (or worse, a child) has wandered into the road. Now you've got a problem: you can't slow down.
If you're in an understeering car, your reactions are straightforward and automatic: you take your foot off the gas, and maybe you even touch the brakes. As you do so, the rears unload a bit -- but since (in the understeering condition) the rears were farther away from their traction limits than were the fronts, they have enough reserve to continue gripping the road. The fronts take on more weight, and as they're cranked hard over for the turn, their increased traction pulls the front end tighter into the corner, and you feel a distinct "tucking in" of the front end (it sometimes also feels like the tail takes an abrupt step out). The tucking-in puts your heart in your mouth, and you countersteer to correct it, but all the while the car is slowing down (the cranked-over front wheels of an understeering car do a very good impression of brakes) and your traction reserves are therefore climbing, and after correcting the incipient slide, you steer around the child, then continue merrily on your way. Afterwards, you call your buddies and tell them not only about the near miss, but about your lightning reflexes and your ability to correct the "sudden savage oversteer" your car experienced at the moment you saw the child, and you feel pretty good about yourself. But you were saved by the understeer.
In contrast, if you're in a neutral car near the limits (which means that both the front and the rear tires are equally close to the edge), you can't slow down very much at all. If you do, the fronts load up and the nose tucks in, only now the rear tires don't have the traction reserves to stop a spin. In fact, if your right foot does the instinctive thing and briefly lifts off the throttle at the instant you see the child, the tail will start to spin, and your only way to recover is to get back onto the throttle and accelerate your way back into control. Of course if you do that, you'll continue on your original arc and hit the child -- and eyewitnesses will subsequently swear at your sentencing hearing that not only did you make no attempt to slow down, but you were even accelerating up to the moment of impact. And who wants to live with that?
Bottom line, basic understeer is a very good thing to have if you're driving on public roads (autocross and track work is different). In practice, all the Golf/Jetta IV suspensions setups sold by reputable vendors (for street use) are designed to basically understeer. The degree of basic understeer varies -- the stock VW suspension understeers a lot, and the more serious setups understeer much less -- but all the reputable setups will leave you enough rear traction reserves to "tuck in" but not spin in the Avoid the Child scenario -- so long as you're careful.
Note once again: a basically understeering car will still oversteer in certain situations; as Ian (Daemon42) has oft pointed out, you can spin even the stock Golf/Jetta if you're stupid enough. What the performance setups do is progressively take out the safety margin for misjudgement / inexperience, so that whereas the stock suspension will save you even if you really, really get things wrong, the more performance-oriented setups will require you to be subtle, skilled, and experienced in a high-speed emergency situation. But they're still not neutral; they retain some stabilizing understeer.
I guess I'm going through all this for two reasons: (1) one is simply to explain why almost all the setups I'll discuss later have varying degrees of understeer built into them; (2) the other is sort of an impassioned plea to the suspension novices not to get too taken up with what the racers and autocrossers are doing. If you're really skilled, you can drive a neutral, track-tuned / autocross car at speed on real roads; if you're less skilled, you can drive safely so long as you're always well under the car's limits. But in the rain, or at speed on a road that surprises you, you can be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Next installment -- identifying who we are....


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

You've captured a LOT of handling dynamics perfectly. Well done - and well written







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif !!
Allow me to add a "picture", if you will, of dynamic weight transfer:
Remember, that in general, more weight transfered to a given contact patch results in increased adhesion - until the physical limits of adhesion are exceeded. Now, picture the perfect 50:50 distributed weight, of the 50:50 torque split AWD, ideal vehicle balanced on a pin-head. Think about what each steering input, throttle input, and brake pedal input will do to the "balance" of your car. If you can truly become aware of that dynamic, and focus on it while you are driving, you'll gain a greater understanding of under-steer, over-steer, and neutrality - and will become a much better and much safer driver to boot!
Again - Winston, HATS OFF AND CHEERS














!!
Thank you (and alex, and Peter (pyce), and others) for taking the time to discuss, describe, and contribute to one of the most educational threads the Vortex has seen in quite a while. I am humbled.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3 -Categories/ Endgoals)*

3. Who we are / Endgoals
Thanks for the kind words, Chris (f1forkvr6), and please do chime in whenever you have more thoughts!








* * * *
We'll finish up the scene-setting here with a little discussion of endgoals and driver types:
Alexb75 has often warned novices asking for advice on the "best" suspension setup, that a perfect suspension for one person might be just horrible for someone else (Go, Alex!). Here (with considerable simplification) is why there's no single "best" suspension:
If you look closely at the posts to the suspension forum, you'll see that suspension enthusiasts tend to fall into several more-or-less clearly defined groups. We'll ignore those who want lowering for looks, as well as the people who simultaneously want pinpoint handling precision, a luxury ride, fantastic grip, and failsafe emergency behaviour (advice to these souls: save up for a nicer car). The remainder fall roughly into 5 categories (I'm grossly oversimplifying here!): there are track enthusiasts, divided between autocross and road-course aficionados, and then there are the roadies, whose 3 categories I'll explain in a moment. (As discussed in the earlier installment (#2), the track setups are considerably closer to "neutral" than are the road suspensions, and only the very skilled or commendably cautious should be running serious track/autocross cars on public roads.) We'll go through these categories one by one:
1) Track-Based Suspensions: Autocross
Autocrossers live in a flat, low-speed world with endless sharp corners. These characteristics -- the relative smoothness of the autocross tracks (e.g., parking lots with cones), the need for lightning-fast corner entry and left-right transitions between corners, and the low speeds necessitated by the constant tight turning -- define the autocross suspension. As we'll see in a later installment, there's probably more room for variety in a Golf/Jetta autocross suspension than anywhere else, and it's here that one might get away with the ultra stiff springs, big antiroll bars, and meaty wide tires that are the staple of common speed shops. That's not to say that the aforementioned parts are the fastest or best way to go, but at least in autocross they have a chance.
2) Track-Based: Road Course
Compared to an autocross course, a true road-racing track allows for much higher speeds and a much more flowing mode of travel. Agility in transitions starts to matter less than stability under trail-braking and an ability to put down power on corner exit. Although the surface of a good track is about as smooth as anything a car will drive on, the speeds are high enough to begin putting a premium on absorbing bumps while maintaining traction. The requirements of a good road-racing suspension start to converge on those of a good street suspension, and a dialed-back road-race setup (i.e., a road-race setup that's been given better ride comfort and more stabilizing understeer) can form the basis of a fast road car.
3) Street-Based: The Darter
"Darter" is not an official term, but it is descriptive. A darter is a person who wants his car to have the instantaneous, solid, no-roll response of a go-kart. "Handling" here equates to an ability to zig-zag through turns so suddenly that passengers lunge frantically for the grab handles and loose french fries go flying through the cabin, or to change lanes in a quick left-right snick-snick that supposedly looks cool but in fact is only dangerous -- it's sort of the Super Mario/ Nintendo view of the automotive world. I was a darter once, and a lot of sub-24 male car enthusiasts seem to start off in this category. Unfortunately, darters are rarely happy people (not least because, if darting is the goal, the Golf/Jetta IV is the wrong car). For the VW-loving darter, the car always rolls too much, the steering is always too slow, there's always too much understeer, and friends' Hondas and Integras are always better. Darters play an important role in the VW tuning ecosystem by single-handedly keeping the smaller tuning shops alive: it is the darters each year who go through enormous quantities of springs, shocks, bars, coilovers, urethane bushings, camber plates, rims, tires, spacers, spindles, strut tower braces, steering racks, spherical bearings, and general miscellaneous stuff, all guaranteed by the vendors to "tighten the handling while eliminating understeer!". There's nothing wrong with being a darter (as I said, I used to be one myself), but it's a frustrating existence if your car is a Golf/Jetta IV, and ultimately darters either gravitate towards autocross setups that don't work for the real world ("Selling complete suspension!! Wife having baby -- must sell!!"), or else they give up by selling their VW, or by becoming a Grand Tourer.... In any event, there is no suspension setup that is the ultimate Golf/Jetta IV street Darter -- if darting is the goal, you will need a different car.
4) Street-Based: The GT's
The acronym "GT" originally referred to Gran Turismo (Grand Touring) cars that were fast, comfortable, and effortless at rapidly covering ground on difficult, twisting roads (supposedly they developed when Europe still didn't have much in the way of superhighways).. And the GT version of the Golf/Jetta is what most non-darter street enthusiasts are looking for. If you fall in this group, you're looking for something that has a lot of grip, is reasonably comfortable, possesses good stability, and is relatively forgiving (so that you can converse with your significant other while zipping through the countryside). The setup for a good GT is essentially a dialed-back version of a good road-race car (with increased understeer and more comfort); the Shine SRSS is probably the exemplar here (although it apparently works well on the track as well), along with its softened permutations, and the GT enthusiast can essentially decide where on the ride vs. handling continuum he wants to be. We'll spend a good amount of time talking about the GT setup, when we eventually get to the appropriate installment.
5) Street-Based: Driving a Slow Car Fast
Finally, here is the smallest, least popular group, which I list primarily because I (Ceilidh) currently live here. A sad thing about aging is that some of us become steadily more boring and wimpy as the years go by, and eventually we resign ourselves to driving interminably behind the Volvo 240 with Delaware plates instead of searching for a way to pass it. When that happens, a "good" suspension becomes one that provides maximum feel, that responds somewhat to classical driving techniques even when driven at 3/10 to 5/10, and that possesses low enough limits (or more accurately, "perceived" limits) so that we get the occasional sensation we're actually driving. For people in this small category, a near stock setup with better damping (but skinny tires) is actually kind of nice.
So those are the categories. Each category has a different ultimate suspension solution (except for the Darters, who are doomed to disappointment), and a person wanting to modify his suspension had best figure out which category (or between which categories) is the one that really applies.
By the way, if you want to have some fun, go through this thread and try to guess which category the various vortexers currently live in. Yours truly (Ceilidh) started out as a Darter, went next to Road-Racing, before fear drove him to GT, and then boredom led him to Slow Car Fast. Peter (Pyce) apparently began as a GT, pushed that to an extreme, and is now slowly drifting in the direction of Slow Car Fast (though I think he's still in the GT realm). Alexb75 talks a bit about Autocrossing, but he's getting tired of having his kidneys pummeled, and is now asking GT-oriented questions. f1forkvr6 is an interesting one: he understands the Slow Car Fast mentality, but he doesn't seem part of it himself; instead, he sounds like a former (or current?) Road Racer who enjoys a bit of everything.... Anyway, just having fun: Alex, Chris, feel free to correct me if I'm wide of the mark.








Next installment (though it might be a few days): how the stock suspension works.


----------



## ShockWaveVT (Apr 16, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

*bump* for an interesting read


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Winston, simply outstanding again! I hope you are saving somewhere all these posts of yours, as at the end I think we should do some sort of PDF and publish it at least on some web sites. It is very, very important that people go through these five categories and decide very seriously (and honestly) where they belong as this is really the absolute "step one" before starting and if this step is overlooked and the wrong decision is taken - then the whole tuning process will be wrong, the results will be wrong..... which is basically what happens in 90% of the cases here on vortex! I myself wish I "met" you on these boards long time ago, so I could have save a lot of money and time, but it did not happen, so I had to learn my lessons the hard (expansive) way....... and the main reason is - I thought (and was given the idea from others here as well) that what you describe in your profile #3 (The Darter) actually could be achieved. And of course, I automatically became part of those who you describe as the people who change incredible amount of parts in an attempt to achieve what actually can't be achieved this simply with our cars...... So, you were not alone there







The good part is that I moved the the profile #4 (The Gran Turismo) some time ago and even discovered that in this category is easier to get some great results and have a lot more fun because finally the car is used for what was meant to begin with....... The idea of moving to profile #5 sounds interesting, but at the same time I feel so "hooked" with #4, it is not easy to step back. I just like a capable car, just feel safer in it, for just in case if I ever need some of these things that "slow" cars do not offer. Yes, it is more boring to drive while at moderate speeds, but then we "downgrade" the tires and we are back in business







....... Have to go now, but later will share few things I found out this weekend,,,,


----------



## 1.8T-ZRyder (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Truly a ton of useable information here. I applaud those that take the time to educate those who may be confused by something they see in a magazine or read in an advertisement. Anyone who reads this and takes heed will surely be a leg up on the guy furiously ringing up the set of coilovers on his charge card for his 15 mile commuter. Right now I find myself dreaming of the GT catagory as I travel to and from work everyday...for now.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Caught me







. I do like a bit of everything, but my passions lie with road-racing setup & theory. I drive about 90+ miles every day during my commute, and take back-roads wherever it makes sense to. I prefer a set-up that is a combination of:
_"Track-Based: Road Course"_ - I love the agility, instantaneous feedback and nearly telepathic reaction this type of setup offers.
and
_"Street-Based: The GT's"_ - since I cover quite a few miles during the week, I appreciate the stable comfort this type of setup offers.
The best part of living in New England, is that for 4-5 months out of the year I get to practice becoming more proficient at the _"Street-Based: Driving a Slow Car Fast"_ driving style. Nothing allows this better than sand/salt covered roads on skinny dedicated snow tires! Combined with a dialed back road-race based setup (SRS RSS), one can really practice making dynamic weight transfer work for you rather than against you.
Edit: what I really want to do is go here: http://www.team-oneil.com/index2.htm
For my $$$, SCCA Pro Rally & WRC drivers have the best car-control skills of any racing series.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 10:18 AM 3-22-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs ....*

1. I think the "break-in" period was kind of over (not that we needed to break-in something, it was me who had to get more familiar with the new rear springs







) so we put together a small group of local VW aficionados and went for a drive through the mountains. Must say that the car behaves better than what I was expecting! It is quick, very quick, specially if the roads are not smooth and the somehow "small" Yokohama ES-100 work very well with this setup. It is the easiest setup I have ever driven. Very forgiving, very idiot proof. It almost makes me feel that I can actually drive. You can chose to control the very mild understeer with the go pedal or with the steering wheel, or with both if something major happen. Very big margin for error, feels very safe when driven quick. I honestly think it is definitely a fantastic setup for "GT" oriented folks, because beside all said, the comfort level is very, very good and that helps a lot for the long trips and the general pleasure of driving. If I ever had to recommend a "GT" setup, as best compromise between comfort, not lowering and handling, this would be the one (let's write it one more time for those who got confused through the pages):
MkIV (A4) Jetta
Shine 225 lb Front Springs
Shine 150 lb Rear Springs
Koni Yellow (Sport) at around 75% Front Rebound
Koni Yellow (Sport) at around 50% Rear Rebound
Yokohama AVS ES-100 205-60-15 at 38 PSI all around.
Stock Front and Rear Anti-Roll Bars
I really hope someone would one day decide to go this direction and then come and tell me that I am not dreaming. It really works great to me, but again, it depends where we all fall in Winston's five categories above. I am continuing to fool around with tire size, rebound, pressure, etc. but at least now we have one setup that already works great and of everything else goes wrong (doe snot feel better), the above setup is where I would gladly end up for good..... 

2. After the blast through the mountains, went home and put back the 16" Touring tires. It is not very comfortable. Tried few quick changes of the Front Rebound, but there was very little to do. The rear just went slightly over the comfort line (my personal). Guess the rear rebound has to be adjusted slightly, but can't do it now. What did help some was reducing the tire pressure from 38 PSI to 35 PSI (first at the rears only, then at the fronts too). I want to give it few days (about 100 miles daily commute) and see how it feels on the usual roads. Must also say that the weather got somehow coldish today, so we need to wait for the next hot wave as to fully understand how much comfort reduction we have from the "plus one" tire upgrade. The interesting part is that the new rear spring somehow "seems" more of an improvement on the Touring 16" tires than on the Yoko Ultra High Performance 15" tires! .... I will try to explain: In one of the previous posts, I mentioned that replacing the 16" Touring with the 15" Performance was very noticeable improvement. This was on the Stock Rear springs. Yesterday, by placing back the 16" Touring tires, but on the new Shine 150 lb rear spring, made me feel that the Touring tire is not that "less" anymore. Basically what I am trying to say is that the stronger rear spring somehow (this is just a feeling for the moment!) manage to "extract" more from this specific 16" Touring make and model than what it managed to "extract" from the specific 15" Performance tire. It feels like now both tires are somewhat closer to each other when "moderately" performing on the street. I mean, the Touring tire gained something more, closed the gap in between. A drive through the mountains one of these days will tell more...... 
You all have a great week!










_Modified by pyce at 9:06 AM 3-22-2004_


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (pyce)*

This has been an excellent thread to read. I know I haven't contributed much to the conversation, but I have really enjoyed lurking here for the duration. Peter keep up the good work. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif The sooner I move to the middle of nowhere (Iowa) the sooner I'll be able to easily mix and match spring rates, damper settings, etc. and hopefully add to this excellent conversation.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (3wheelinWolf)*

Thanks a lot Winston for such a good summary and also to Peter to sum up his setup during a hard personal time.
I am extremely busy with school (finals) and cannot write that long. But just repeat what Winston mentioned and to emphasise my point.
PLEASE TEST DRIVE SETUPS BEFORE BUYING, if possible. 
The most important thing in figuring out a suspension setup for your need is to drive one with that setup. Nothing else beats that. Michael Schumacher can come over here and tell you that setup X is the best, but I am not sure if any of us drive like him or like the cars he likes to drive. No one buys a car without test driving, suspension make a car FEEL and HANDLE completely different, so in essence it is a new car, so TEST DRIVE IT. Go to VW/Audi events, ask “kindly” to drive people’s cars or ask the tuner shop to bring one their cars in, so you can test it… most reputable companies have no problem with that, if they refused, then refuse to buy their product. 
Now, if you cannot find a particular setup to test, ask around here about impressions and AT LEAST drive in a car with similar setup (drop/springs/shocks/tires/wheels) and know that if you are concerned about comfort, shocks are the most important factor and even if you can just drive a car with the shocks you want to buy (but not the exact setup), you will probably be able to get an idea.
Wanna blab some more, but no time. 
Cheers,
Alex


----------



## wickGLIguy (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (alexb75)*

Sorry, may be a little OT, but i'm installing my koni yellows and h&r sports this week, and was wondering if i should cut my bumpstops, or not. Do the bumpstops affect the height of the vehicle? Also some people post that the koni's actually raise the car a little, any one have this experience? Thanks so much, your input is appreciated


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (wickGLIguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wickGLIguy* »_Sorry, may be a little OT, but i'm installing my koni yellows and h&r sports this week, and was wondering if i should cut my bumpstops, or not. Do the bumpstops affect the height of the vehicle? Also some people post that the koni's actually raise the car a little, any one have this experience? Thanks so much, your input is appreciated

This exact question has been answered in another thread http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1291911. You need to either cut your rear bumpstop by 1" or get the "C" version of the bumpstop that comes with 337 (pat# and the rest on page3 of this thread). You don't have to touch the front bumpstop.


_Modified by alexb75 at 5:55 PM 3-22-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (wickGLIguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *wickGLIguy* »_ ....... Also some people post that the koni's actually raise the car a little, any one have this experience? ..... 

Bilsteins HD and Sport do raise the car little bit (also discussed on some early pages in this topic, look for posts from Winston) because the high pressure pushes the rod out quiet a bit, acting at the end like a spring's rate booster (sort of) so no matter what springs you put, a Bilstein Mono Tube shock will help the car to seat little bit higher than the Koni Yellow Twin Tube shock. I myself did not know that before starting this topic, but once replaced the Bilstein Sports with Koni Yellow, my car dropped little and if you want to know by how much precisely, I can check the notes I wrote in the garage and tell you tomorrow.....
As for the bumpstops (buffers) I can bet money that you will be riding on them with H&R Sport Rear springs! Whether to cut them or not is entirely your decision, but as an ex owner of H&R Sport, I can tell that those springs are not very stiff and probably is a good idea to have some help (in increasing spring rate) with the stock buffers. If you do not mind experimenting little bit, then perhaps you can leave the buffers in place and drive for few days and see how you like it. If you can't stand the ride, then start cutting, it is easy and fast anyway. Hope this helps some...


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (pyce)*

I've been reading the last few pages in awe, I was ready to give up on the vortex. However, Winston, your posts give me reason to procastinate my other work by reading these threads. When this discussion has played out I'll definitely do my part to document it because I believe it represents the spirit of why I enjoy aftermarket tuning, to provide an enjoyable, fun driving experience, not to have the "best" setup or the most popular one.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (4a - Stock Suspension (A))*

Hi Everybody,
Thank you for all the interesting comments, Chris, Alex, and others!; Peter, it's really nice to have you back, and thank you very much for the detailed post.








Work is getting a little hectic right about now, and I'm finding less time for writing. So let me try something -- rather than write complete chapters (which can take a while to gather & organize thoughts), I'll try writing fragments whenever I have some time (that is, I'll try writing almost in free-form stream of consciousness, instead of working out what to write beforehand). The downside is that things will be harder to read (and much wordier), and the logical flow will be lessened; but the upside is that at least something will be get written down(!). Anyway, I'll try it this evening; if it doesn't work out, I'll go back to the planned out, full chapters.
So here goes for Section 4 sub-a: intro to the stock suspension:
As noted earlier, the stock suspension is (as you'd expect) the most forgiving of the suspension options, and it has the greatest and most persistent understeer. This understeer, however, doesn't quite work the way that many people expect, and if we're going to modify the Golf/Jetta IV suspension for better handling, it'd be useful to know just how and why the stock understeer exists:
Because tuning books and magazine articles spend so much time talking about lateral weight transfer in corners (e.g., stiffening the front of a car makes it understeer; stiffening the rear reduces understeer and leads to oversteer), one can very reasonably get the impression that weight transfer and roll stiffness are the primary determinants of handling balance. And this impression would be reasonably correct if the car in question is the sort of car that tuning books & articles like to talk about: race cars, or street cars that have been heavily tweaked for cornering grip. A hallmark of such cars is good camber control in corners: when a race car or race-modified car goes around a curve, its wheels (or at least the heavily loaded outside wheels) are more or less upright. And with upright wheels, weight transfer is the dominant factor in determining handling balance. But things change quite a bit if, as with the stock Golf/Jetta IV, the wheels are allowed to lean "the wrong way" (i.e., take on adverse camber) in a turn....
Now at this point, everybody's probably saying "Yes, yes, we know all about adverse camber and the stock suspension's stupid inability to keep the tires upright -- that's why we want to modify the car!" -- but here's the kicker: the adverse camber is not "stupid"; it's actually an integral part of what makes the stock suspension so forgiving, and we'll want to be careful about taking it out.
To understand this rather weird-sounding point, let's consider for a moment something very unlike the Golf/Jetta: let's consider a "perfectly balanced" (50:50 weight distribution, AWD, etc.) car with a "perfect" suspension that keeps the wheels perfectly upright in a corner. Such a car will respond "perfectly" to all the well-known suspension tweaks: put stiffer springs or a bigger anti-roll bar at one end of the car, and that end will breakaway first in a corner. Hence if we stiffen the front end a bit, we get mild understeer; stiffen it a lot, and we get heavy understeer, heavy enough to keep even the most ham-handed of drivers from spinning off the road. What could be simpler than that?
But now let's look in more detail at what's going on with the tires: When tires are loaded up in a corner, they initially respond in what's called a "linear" fashion: in colloquial English, they give back exactly what's asked of them -- if you load them a little harder, they corner a little harder; load them a lot harder, and they corner a lot harder; everything stays proportional. This :"linear regime" can persist for some time, but there comes a load after which there's a "transitional phase", where the tires give progressively less and less of what's expected of them, followed by a slip or sliding phase where they can't give any more at all (for the tire aficionados, I realize I'm mixing up concepts from slip angle curves and load curves, so please forgive me! - I'm just trying to get a general qualitative point across...). This passage from linear to transitional to slip is what permits chassis tuning via lateral weight transfer: When we stiffen up the front end of our "perfect" car, we induce understeer by having the front tires (when averaged left & right) hit the transitional and slip phases sooner than do the rears; when the fronts are in transition or slip, they're supplying less cornering grip than are the rears, and thus the front end breaks away first.
All this should sound pretty straightforward and familiar up to this point. But now here's the problem: the transitional and slip phases only set in when the tires are pretty heavily loaded in a turn, and most of the time (when you're on public roads) you're driving in the linear regime --- and in the linear regime, the vast majority of non-race drivers cannot feel whether the car is oversteering, understeering, or driving neutral. Instead, the car simply feels like it is cornering on rails. Moreover, a great majority of non-race drivers cannot discern a tire's entry into the transitional phase, either, and they will only notice something's changed when the tire is well into the slip phase of things. (This is not an indictment of the average driver: it's hard to detect something if you don't know what it feels like, and one of the many benefits of a good performance or race-driving school is that you get practice and instruction in how the tire limits really feel.) Thus for most drivers, our hypothetical "perfect" car will not seem to understeer until front traction is practically used up. Worse still, a tire that's in the slip phase is no longer listening to the steering wheel: once the front tires have entered this part of the cornering curve, the driver is more or less along for the ride. And that's not good.
The above scenario is the origin of the oft-quoted (and oft-misinterpreted) racing adage that "oversteer is where the passenger is scared; understeer is where the driver is scared". When a car with upright tires (e.g., a race car) begins to heavily understeer, the driver can no longer steer. That means that a car set up to moderately or heavily understeer on upright tires is -- for the vast majority of non-race drivers at least -- a very scary beast. Thrown into a curve at high speed, it will seem to corner absolutely neutrally for a very long time, but push too hard, and at some point the front end will "suddenly" and "savagely" break away, at which the steering wheel becomes absolutely useless. That is why race drivers detest heavy understeer; a little is ok, but a lot can be very deadly.
Now, we've just said that this racing adage is oft-misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation comes when we try to apply the adage to street and road cars. Race cars are designed to keep their tires upright in a corner, and understeer is scary. But if you allow a car to roll and to put its tires into adverse camber in a corner, you can transform understeer from a scary, savage beast into something intuitive and utterly benign. As to how that's done...well, I've run out of time, so it'll just have to wait for some other day.....
Good night, folks!


----------



## wickGLIguy (Sep 24, 2003)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Can you cut the bumpstops while they are on the vehicle, or do you have to take them off to cut them? Thanks!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (4b - Stock Suspension B)*

Right. Now, let's finish up the handling characteristics of the stock suspension.
To review thus far: (1) the stock suspension must understeer enough to keep neophytes from inadvertently spinning under all but the most extreme situations, but (2) creating such understeer via lateral weight transfer & upright tires is unacceptable, as the resulting car will seem (to the untrained driver) to understeer suddenly, savagely, and with almost complete loss of steering control. So what do we do?
We let the car roll, and we let the front tires take on adverse camber while keeping the rear wheels upright.
Let's look at this in detail:
The geometry of the McPherson strut front suspension is discussed fairly exhaustively elsewhere on this forum, so we we'll only briefly summarize the salient points here: when the Golf/Jetta IV rolls on the stock suspension, the outside front wheel (which takes most of the turning load under hard cornering) initially stays fairly upright, but then takes on increasing amounts of adverse camber (i.e., it leans towards the outside of the corner the car is negotiating). This leaning, or adverse cambering, is extremely progressive and continuous: corner lightly, and the tire's pretty upright; corner moderately, and the tire leans moderately; corner hard, and the tire leans a lot.
In contrast, the non-R32 rear suspension is a simple twist-beam with the beam mounted aft of the trailing arm pivot points. Geometrically this suspension behaves much like a semi-trailing arm setup, and the outside rear tire remains relatively upright as the car rolls (at least so long as both rear tires remain on the ground). Thus the geometry of the stock suspension ensures that as the car corners and rolls, the front tires lean (adverse camber) more than the rears, with the amount of leaning progressively increasing with cornering speed.
So why is this good? Ok, now here's the subtle part. When the front tires lean, two things happen: (1) the overall cornering grip at that end of the car goes down, causing understeer in the usual fashion (note that the rear tires stay much more upright); and (2) the tires contribute something called "camber thrust" (for devotees of Milliken and Milliken, yes radials thrust less than do bias plies, but the camber thrust is still there even with radial tires). This camber thrust does wonders for causing progressive understeer in the stock suspension.
Maybe this is a good time to switch to some plain English(!): if you take a tire, and tilt it, it wants to turn in the direction it's tilted; lean it left and the tire will turn left; lean it right and it turns right. This tendency to turn is called "camber thrust". Now, imagine we have a car that is turning to the left: the car rolls to the right, and if the outside front tire is leaning to the right, that tire will want to steer to the right as well. This steering to the right causes understeer (because the driver wants to turn to the left), but -- and here is the important point -- the understeer has nothing to do with the tire nearing its traction/grip limits. In fact, the understeer will occur quite vividly even when the tire is in its "linear" regime, where it still has all the traction in the world. This is a very, very useful phenomenon, because it means that when the car starts to understeer, the driver can still steer the car. In contrast to the upright-tire (race car) situation where significant understeer occurs only after the front tires have used up much of their traction (at which point they stop responding to steering inputs), the leaning-tire understeer occurs early enough that steering is still an option, and the amount of understeer progressively increases with cornering load.
Because the front tires on a stock Golf/Jetta lean, the car behaves in a very "natural" fashion as it corners: take a corner mildly, and the car simply goes around unfussed; go a little faster, and it understeers a little; go moderately faster and the understeer becomes moderate; go way too fast and the understeer becomes pretty heavy. But at no time does the front suddenly and savagely break away, leaving the driver helpless to do anything but stare at whatever he's about to hit. At all times, the driver can correct for the understeer simply by turning the steering wheel a little harder: because the front tires are still well below their traction limits (despite all the understeer), they will still steer the car back onto the cornering line. Thus whereas with a race car, "understeer is where the driver is scared", with the stock car understeer is not scary at all -- it's just slow and rather annoying.
Bottom line, the roll-induced moderate understeer on the stock Golf/Jetta IV provides some very nice characteristics for driving on public roads: if you go too fast, the front of the car gradually begins to drift wide of the intended line, and you can correct your path simply by slowing down or by turning the steering wheel a little or a lot harder. These handling characteristics are so "natural"-feeling that most drivers assume they're some sort of law of nature. They're not. They're there because of moderate understeer, induced by roll, and they're not present in a true race car.
(By the way, the stock car is set up so that the roll-induced understeer becomes intolerably unpleasant long before the tires hit their traction limits; on dry roads, it's very difficult for any but the truly masochistic to get to the point that the front tires no longer steer. If you do get to that point (it's more likely to occur on the slower corners), you'll feel the car just start "plowing forward" with a lot of tire scrubbing noises....)
Digression: a Pathological "Tuned" VW
There's still a bit more to be said about the stock suspension, but anyone wading through these last two "stock suspension" installments will probably be wondering why we're going through all this in a vortex thread that's ostensibly about improving handling. So I'll give a brief taster here, as an example of why an understanding of the stock suspension can help us in modifying our cars. We'll consider a pathological case:
A couple of months ago, there was an interesting thread about anti-roll bars on this forum, and one of the individuals posting appeared to be a pretty nice, perceptive fellow who had been given some very bad advice. This advice had led him to install a fairly gargantuan front anti-roll bar on a car that was in other respects not far from stock. His report was that even with the huge front bar, understeer was significantly reduced and the handling was much sharper -- but in wet weather, the front would sometimes break away very suddenly and unexpectedly. Let's look at why this should happen:
First of all, remember that when upright tires are working in their linear regime, it's extremely difficult for untrained (non-race) drivers to discern whether a car is understeering, oversteering, or neutral -- the car simply feels like it's on rails. Secondly, remember that the stock suspension, with its leaning tires, is designed to give camber-thrust-induced understeer while the tires are still well within the linear regime. Put these two concepts together, and....
If you take a stock car and reduce the amount of roll, there is less tire lean, less camber-thrust, and less understeer -- almost irrespective of how you go about reducing the roll (at least so long as you're in the linear regime). Hence if you mount a gargantuan front bar on an otherwise stock car, it understeers less simply because it rolls less -- so long as you're going at moderate speeds. A trained driver, one who's used to driving racing-style cars, will of course detect almost immediately that the car is still understeering (because of the greatly increased front lateral weight transfer, caused by the massive bar), but an untrained driver will only note the cornering-on-rails sensation of upright tires in the linear regime, and he'll think that the understeer's gone. Hence the report that "Mounting a big front antiroll bar eliminated the stock understeer on my car!".
But now let's look at what happens in the rain: on dry roads, the cornering limits of a flat-cornering VW are high enough that most neophytes will not reach them; hence the driver of the big-front-bar car probably never left the linear regime, and so he never felt the car understeer. But in the wet, the tire limits are much lower, and they can be reached when the bar is still holding the car very flat (with the tires still upright). As a consequence, the big-front-bar car in the rain handles very much like an upright-tire race car with far, far too much weight-transfer-induced understeer: when corners are taken too fast, the fronts exceed their traction limits, and they break away in the regime where they no longer steer. Thus the supposedly understeer-free car in the dry takes on a sudden, frightening understeer in the wet. Not good.
Pathological Example #2
I wasn't going to do this (we're getting a little ahead of ourselves), but as long as we're talking about pathological suspension setups, let's also look at one of the very many reasons why a Golf/Jetta IV with a massive rear bar and stock everything else is also a very ill-handling beast (or, as Dick Shine has often warned people, a rear anti-roll bar cannot cure a fundamentally unsound suspension!).
We'll talk about the big-rear-bar/ soft front setups more in a later installment, but for now we'll just focus on the very common thread postings where someone (usually a novice) raves about the 28mm bar on the rear of his stock car, but then warns someone else (also usually a novice) to take the bar off in the winter, because otherwise there's sudden savage oversteer (usually these email exchanges have horrible misspellings, by the way, but that's a different topic...). Leaving aside the questionable merits of a suspension you have to remove on a seasonal basis, what's really going on here, and is this a good setup?
1) One possibility is that the novices never noticed any oversteer in dry weather because they never pushed hard enough to leave the linear regime. Again, when you make a car roll less than stock (here by installing a big rear bar), you make the front tires more upright, the roll-induced understeer decreases, and so long as you're in the linear regime, everything feels great. And also again, the actual performance limits of even the stock car (which invariably feels much closer to the limit than it actually is) are high enough that many drivers don't approach them in the dry. So one possibility is that the car was an oversteerer in both summer and winter, but only in winter was it noticeable. Perhaps.
2) But let's look at the dry, summer handling a little more closely. For reasons we'll perhaps get to later, someday, a big front bar can substantially reduce roll, but a big rear bar will only reduce the initial amount of roll. At some point, the inside rear wheel will lift (it'll lift on even a well-driven stock car), and when that happens, it really doesn't matter whether there's a big anti-roll bar in the back or not: as far as the car is concerned, there is one wheel on the ground in the back, and two wheels on stock springs and stock bar in the front. Hence at the dry-road 3-wheel cornering limit, a big-rear-bar car will understeer about as much as will a completely stock car (note: there's actually a bit of a difference in that a big rear bar will, by lifting the inside wheel higher, cause more leaning of the outside wheel, but there's so much understeer built into the stock suspension that the overall result is still understeer). Now, this is a fairly horrible handling set up (understeer sets in rapidly the moment the rear wheel leaves the ground), but there's no oversteer at the limit.
But what happens in snow? When the roads are truly slick with snow or ice, the tires reach their performance limit at a very low g-force -- so low that the car has hardly rolled at all. Thus in the snow, the big-rear-bar car (with stock front) behaves like an upright-tire race car with far, far too much lateral weight transfer at the rear: when the limits are reached, the rear breaks away, suddenly and savagely. Thus you have a car that seems neutral at low to moderate speeds in the dry, that understeers heavily at the dry limit, but which oversteers dramatically on slick roads.
And for this someone has paid $300?
Anyway, just a few more stock suspension things to clear up -- until then, have a good weekend, everyone!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Ceilidh: To keep things simple lets continue the discussion where we have stock springs. With respect to the wheels working within their linear regime as it relates to understeer, how does camber change outside of stock specifications effect this dynamic? In other words, lets assume the camber within stock specs is .4 degrees positive camber right and left. Apply that specification to your comments with respect to the onset of understeer while maintaining control of the car. Now take the same car and move the camber to -2.0 degrees camber right and left. How does this effect the forementioned mechanism of the linear regime? Furthermore, how does this effect camber thrust? 
My assumption would be that in the dry, grip would be improved, camber thrust would be decreased and roll would be uneffected. However we would be closer to the limit of the tire's ability to keep traction thus reducing the grey area where understeer is controllable vs scary.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Ha Ha, Peter -- very nice!








(The sad thing is that that's how my car looked 5 months out of the year when I lived north of Toronto....)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (5 - Autocross)*

(3 Wheelin, let me get back to you after I've gotten more stuff up on this thread; you raise an interesting question, and I'm inclined to agree with your intuition, but I'd have to think about it for a bit! My apologies for not answering fully right away -- hope you understand.







)
Autocross Suspensions
There are a few more things to mention with the stock suspension, but we can cover those points when we discuss GT setups. For now, let's look at autocross.
This will be comparatively brief, as I (Ceilidh) have never autocrossed or set up a car for autocross, and people like Tyrolkid know far more about it than I ever will. Still, a brief pass through the theory will make the GT setups (our ultimate destination) more intuitive, and in any event I promised Alexb75 some comments on the autocross links he recently posted. (Note: if anything I say conflicts with anything Tyrolkid has said, go with Tyrolkid!







)
So here we go: As discussed earlier, autocrossers drive at low speeds on smooth surfaces, and spend most of their time timing and transitioning between turns. Agility is at a premium, as is cornering grip, and (as we're talking track cars here) we don't care about ride quality or progressive, forgiving understeer, and we want the car to be neutral. Autocross cars make perhaps the most use of the various go-fast products on sale for VW use, and there's more room for variety here than anywhere else. Here, in terms of general theory, is why:
I. A Hypothetical, Perfectly Smooth Track
Imagine we're running on a perfectly smooth autocross track, one where there is not even the slightest suggestion of a bump, crack, or pavement ripple (this is the assumption that most tuning magazine articles seem to make, by the way, so what follows next will probably sound familiar). As we don't have to worry at all about road imperfections (in this hypothetical, completely unrealistic scenario), the basic setup theory is straightforward:
A) The more upright the tires are (especially the outside tires in a corner), the more cornering grip we can get.
B) The more we can get the car's weight evenly distributed among all four tires, the more ultimate grip we have.
C) The less the car rolls, and the stiffer the "roll rate", the less time the car spends taking a set for a corner, and the more rapidly we can transition from corner to corner.
To achieve these goals, we can "tune" our car exactly the way the tuner mags recommend:
1) We install massive springs and/or antiroll bars to cut roll to a minimum, and to increase the roll rate (the "springiness" of the car in roll). This modification keeps the front tires far more upright in a corner (which increases grip and cuts understeer) and speeds the car through transitions (because the car takes a set much more rapidly on corner entry).
2) We force the wheels into negative camber so as to counteract any residual roll, and to perhaps even get camber thrust to work with us by leaning the outside tires towards the inside of a corner.
3) We balance the springs/bars fore & aft so that the cornering balance is neutral (as the car is nose heavy, that means the rear should be a bit stiffer).
4) And we drop the car, front and back, as far as we possibly can, so as to lower the center of gravity (CG). Lowering the CG does not reduce roll -- it in fact increases it because of the oft-discussed rapid lowering of the front roll center, but we can counteract the increased rolling tendency simply by making the springs and bars still stiffer. The lowered CD does, however, reduce the total lateral weight transfer in a corner (the total transfer is simply a function of track width and CG height, and is independent of suspension design or spring/bar rates). This reduction in lateral weight transfer means the 4 tires are more evenly loaded in a corner, which increases overall grip and cornering speeds.
4-A) As a side note, dropping the car leads to a very low front roll center (it's actually below the ground now). For reasons we won't go into here (it's discussed in all the good textbooks), the roll center height controls lateral weight transfer at the initial instant of corner entry, and a lowered front roll center thus means better initial turn in.
5) We install big, stiff, quick-acting Bilstein or other monotube shocks to further snub down the chassis and thus speed up our speed in transitions.
6) And to further reduce play or compliance in the suspension (all of which increases the time it takes for the car to take a set, and/or reduces the effectiveness of our antiroll bars), we replace all the bushings with spherical joints, solid bushings, etc., etc.
The above really should sound extremely familiar, as it's what all the tuning shops and tuning magazines tell us to do.
So what's the problem? Well, for one thing, even an autocross track isn't perfectly smooth. And that has the potential to change everything:
II. The Problem With Bumps
An implicit assumption in the "perfect world" autocross setup is that we can make the springs and bars (and bushings, shocks, etc.) as stiff as we need to in order to control roll and body sway/heave/roll/pitch/etc. But in practice, a car's suspension exists for a reason, even in a race car where ride comfort is a non-issue: When there are bumps, a perfectly rigid car with a perfectly rigid suspension will spend most of its time with its tires flying from bump crest to bump crest, and during the time the tires are flying, the cornering grip is zero. The suspension on even a track car thus has the critical job of keeping the tires pressed to the pavement as evenly and as firmly as possible, and that requirement puts a limit on how stiff we can set the springs. Thus we have to add two new goals to A, B, C listed above:
D. The softer the springs are and the better tuned the shocks are to the spring rates, the better the "mechanical grip" between tire and track surface.
E. The more independent the suspension truly is, the better the mechanical grip.
Requirements "D" and "E" go at odds with many of the "standard" tuning tweaks advocated by the go-fast vendors. The complications are many, but here are some of the biggies:
1) If we stiffen the springs too hard, the tires lose mechanical grip. This puts a limit to how stiff we can go in an effort to control roll.
2) If we try to circumvent #1 by increasing the antiroll bar size, we eventually begin to lose grip by (a) non-independent suspension action (the bars tie the inside wheels to the outside, and start behaving like a solid axle suspension), and (b) an inability to tune the shock absorbers to match both the (softer) vertical spring rate and the (stiffer) roll rate.
3) Lowering the front suspension rapidly drops the front roll center, which increases the roll couple; the car therefore either rolls more, or requires stiffer springs to counteract the roll (which reduces mechanical grip). Both of these effects negate or partially negate the lateral weight-transfer benefits of lowering.
Thus the appearance of requirements "D" and "E" mean we can't simply slam the Golf/Jetta IV down to the pavement and stiffen the springs. From the autocross link that Alexb75 posted a couple of weeks ago, it appears that at least some autocrossers are actively experimenting with different avenues of optimization. In general theory, at least, one can try to:
1) go with a lowered car, and back off on the springs & bars (thereby rolling more, but maintaining mechanical grip and reduced lateral weight transfer)
2) keep the front end relatively high, and fit moderate springs & bars (which rolls less, keeping the tires upright and maintaining mechanical grip, but accepting more lateral weight transfer)
3) go moderate on the springs, but go stiff with the bars (which maintains mechanical grip on vertical bumps, but loses out on 1-wheel bumps, and in some cases loses out on transitions because of play in the antiroll bar linkage)
4) stay moderate on the bars, but go heavy with the springs (which loses general mechanical grip, but improves agility (non-Shine-style bars typically have a bit of play, whereas springs act right away in transitions)
5) or try various combinations of 1, 2, 3, or 4, and try different things on different ends of the car (e.g., soft rear springs and big Shine bar, plus stiff front springs and no bar, etc.).
What will actually work best? That's a question for the autocross experts, not me (Ceilidh)! But the main points here are that:
A) with Autocross setups, different combinations might work best on different tracks (e.g., a smooth tight track, vs. a rough, faster track, etc.) and with different drivers; from Alexb75's post, there certainly appears to be a range...
B) But far more importantly for the purposes of this thread, the need to absorb bumps is something that just can't be ignored in setting up a Golf/Jetta IV suspension -- even on something as comparatively smooth as an autocross track. If bumps didn't exist, we'd just mindlessly set up our cars the way the speed magazine breathlessly extoll (slam the car, stiffen the springs, mount big bars front & rear, etc.). But when reality sets in, in the form of actual track and road surfaces, the ideal speed-magazine setup gradually morphs into something a lot closer to the Shine -- and when we factor in ride comfort later on in this thread, the Shine will start to look even better.
Next up: road racing theory (and Chris (f1forkvr6), thatll be right up your alley, so please get ready to chime in!).


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Winston - you may find the follwing interesting for your next chapter:
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racet....html
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racet....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
There is a ton more stuff out there, but these guys put it all in one place. Happy reading!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*

Thanks for the info, Chris -- I knew you were the expert!
How'd you like to write the next chapter?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Thanks for the info, Chris -- I knew you were the expert!

No, No No ... not even close.
All I am is someone who is keenly interested in the physics, technology, and sport of road racing - professional & amateur, open wheel, sports car, endurance, vintage, etc ...
I have limited auto-x experience, and the only wheel to wheel competition I've ever done is Karting -
http://www.f1outdoors.com/main.html (highly recommended, and very close by for you







)
Rely on Mike (tyrolkid), Ian (daemon42), alexb, and others for actual "track" experience with their VWs. Someday, when the time is right, I will go IT racing. Until then, I'm clearly no expert







.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
No, No No ... not even close.
All I am is someone who is keenly interested in the physics, technology, and sport of road racing - professional & amateur, open wheel, sports car, endurance, vintage, etc ...
I have limited auto-x experience, and the only wheel to wheel competition I've ever done is Karting -
http://www.f1outdoors.com/main.html (highly recommended, and very close by for you







)
Rely on Mike (tyrolkid), Ian (daemon42), alexb, and others for actual "track" experience with their VWs. Someday, when the time is right, I will go IT racing. Until then, I'm clearly no expert







.

I also rely on Mike (tyrol) for AutoX stuff. I am in the process of changing my Neuspeed Sport+Bilstein to either a modified KW V1/V2 (with less lowering) or Sofsport+Koni.


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Hmmm ... wow thanks to all who have contributed analyses, observations, points and counterpoints to this thread. As your average driver I had no idea of the distinctions in the types of understeer / oversteer (be it designed into the suspension geometry vs. that induced by weight transfer and tire traction limits) ... I'm slowly making my way through Ceilidh's posts ... it would probably do me good to read the source textbooks too huh (what text is the Milliken and Milliken one (sp?) ?)

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Actually I do have a question: what does it mean to "tune" the shocks to the spring rates (or to match shocks to springs)? How does one go about determining the valving / stiffness of shocks to match a given set of springs?
Thanks!


_Modified by Mencius01 at 4:52 PM 3-26-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Mencius01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mencius01* »_
.....what does it mean to "tune" the shocks to the spring rates (or to match shocks to springs)? How does one go about determining the valving / stiffness of shocks to match a given set of springs?
Thanks!

_Modified by Mencius01 at 4:52 PM 3-26-2004_

Oh my.........Peter, would you like to take a crack at this one?







(If not, Mencius, there's a bit of a discussion about shock tuning on this thread, back a little ways. If you can hold off for a while, I'll try to get back to you on this, but it'd take a little time -- thanks for your patience!)
P.S. -- the Milliken text is Race Car Vehicle Dynamics: very complete, a fair bit of math...


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Mencius01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mencius01* »_Actually I do have a question: what does it mean to "tune" the shocks to the spring rates (or to match shocks to springs)? How does one go about determining the valving / stiffness of shocks to match a given set of springs?
Thanks!
_Modified by Mencius01 at 4:52 PM 3-26-2004_

I am not an expert, but try to explain it in a simple way.
Spring do get compressed when you hit a bump or when weigth transfers to one side of the car. If there are no shocks, the springs will rebound excessively to release that energy stored in them (compress one of those mechanical pen's springs and the let it go, it will jump out of your hands or will bounce up and down if it's tied somewhere). A shock will take that energy and make the spring rebound much more controlled, it will take the energy from springs and converts it into heat. Now, the level that the shock rebounds or compresses must be matched to the spring rate or it will have too much or too little damping for the springs. So, a soft shock cannot control a stiff spring which results in bounciness in sport springs installed on stock shocks and the opposite is also true that you will not get a controlled ride if you install a stiff shock on softer springs (over-damped). For ride comfort, the art is to make the frequency of the bounce tolerable to the people riding in the car... I think Winston explained this very well a while back... that's why it's very important that a spring and shock are matched properly and if you mix and match them unless you have adjustability on the shocks, you won't get a good balance of ride/handling. 
Others can explain this more scientifically.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Mencius, let's go for a drive next weekend! Then you take a ride in my car and we will tweak the front rebound from 0% to 100% stiff every few miles and you will get good idea what at least rebound do to the same spring. For the theory, Alex said it well. That's in general the principle..... the confusion comes later, when trying to implement the theory








Boy, I keep trying to post some updates on the rear springs I have now, but had been so packed this week..... will try to write something tonight from home.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Winston - you may find the follwing interesting for your next chapter:
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racet....html
http://www.ozebiz.com.au/racet....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
http://www.smithees-racetech.c....html
There is a ton more stuff out there, but these guys put it all in one place. Happy reading!

(Some technical discussions with f1forkvr6 (not terribly VW-specific, and fairly arcane, so feel free to skip), followed by a question for (Peter) Pyce...)
Hi Chris!
Thanks again for the links -- I'm working through them gradually, and they're pretty neat. Especially interesting was the news that dirt-track oval racers sometimes raise their CG to get more roll(!), and the 2 hertz ride rate figure for small racing sedans was informative too.
Just wanted to let you know I would respectively elaborate / differ on two of the articles' points:
1) (Straightforward, fairly minor): the articles imply that a high roll center is undesirable because of increased tire scrub due to track change. That's true for the suspensions these Aussies are dealing with, but...
a) A live, beam, or DeDion rear suspension can have an extremely high roll center (up at wheel hub height) without any scrub at all. For our Golf/Jettas and their twist-beam rears, it's up at around 9" -- pretty high too! -- and there's not much of a scrub issue there either.
b) For older rear independent suspensions, the greater problem with high roll centers is a "jacking" phenomenon (different from the shock-rebound "jacking down" we talked about earlier), in which the outside rear wheel tries to tuck under the chassis (which "jacks" the car up into the air) if the roll center it too high. My Triumph Spitfire used to do this (talk about sudden, scary oversteer!), and the solution is a "Z-bar", which is the opposite of an antiroll bar -- it has no resistance to roll, but it resists two-wheel bump & rebound. No relevance to our VWs, but thought you might be interested...
c) From a ride (vs. a racing) perspective, a further problem with a high roll center is that it jerks the chassis of the car sideways every time you hit a 1-wheel bump. If you ride in an older SUV with live axles, and you notice a weird squirming sensation as the wheels roll over uneven pavement, a lot of that comes from the high roll centers that come with leaf springs and solid axles.
2) The articles make a big point about shock damping affecting only the timing of weight transfer, and not the magnitude. That's probably pretty close to the truth for the racing cars being discussed (in which they're using very quick-acting racing shocks with minimal bushing compliance), but it's not quite the case with a more streetable car. We (on our street VWs) have quite a bit of compliance in our suspensions, and on transitions the sprung mass can develop a fair head of steam before the shocks start to rein it in (you can look at it as an inertial effect). Hence when the shocks start to damp, the chassis motion can already be fairly fast, and we can get some pretty big spikes in the weight transfer vs. time graphs.
For example, when Peter (Pyce) and I independently found that we could swing the rear around on tight corners by upping the rear rebound (Peter described it as a sensation of "pulling down" on the inside rear corner of the chassis; I felt it as a slightly delayed stepping out of the rear tires), part of it, I think, came from a relatively sudden spiking of the weight transfer as the shocks caught up with the chassis motion.
In any case the phenomenon can be found in Milliken (I don't have the page reference handy, sorry), where there's a graph of spring & shock-induced wheels loadings on a street car entering a corner: with stiff shocks, the loads momentarily spike up so high they literally go off the chart.
Anyway, just wanted to comment on those points; once again, thanks very much for the links -- they're very informative!









Now for the question for Peter (Pyce):
Peter,
I'll take a stab at the GT setups fairly soon, and as I'm basing quite a bit of it on what you've found through your experimentation, if there's anything new that you've been wanting to report, please do let us know! In particular, there are three things that would really interest me:
1) How would you describe the ride quality with your Shine Front / 150 lb rear vs what it was with the Shine Front / Stock rears? What's changed in terms of general firmness, pitching sensation, and impact harshness?
2) Have you ever, perhaps in an earlier year, driven or ridden in a Shine Front / Shine Rear car without (repeat, without) the rear antiroll bar? If so, how was it in terms of ride and/or handling? (Oldman, if you're still reading along, have you tried the 180lb rears without a rear bar?)
3) And finally, have you ever driven a Golf/Jetta with stock springs and a rear antiroll bar (like the typical 25mm rear bar that people often try as a first mod)? If so, what was it like? How does it compare with stock and with the other setups you've tried?
[Or if anyone else has tried both a (stock spring / aftermarket rear bar) setup and either a Shine or a Sofsport or an H&R OE setup, and can compare the rear bar setup against pure stock and the Shine/Sofsport/etc., please feel free to comment!]
Thanks very much, and hope you're all having a good weekend!








- W



_Modified by Ceilidh at 11:21 AM 3-27-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Winston, straight on to your questions:
1. The ride with 150 lb rear Shine is firmer than the ride with Stock rears. Note, I replaced just the springs, without touching anything else. If you all remember, the day I swap the springs was also the day we had very big heat wave here and temps went to above 80 degree. I noted that the Shine 150 lb is little bit uncomfy on certain surfaces, but overall I could stand it and it is right below the border of my personal comfort level....... few days later, (and this is the new part) the temps drop quiet a lot (by 30-40 degree) and the car is now slightly uncomfortable. Still, I can stand it, but the commute is not as pleasant as before. I tried both 15" and 16" and both (while provide different pitch frequency) are showing similar level of discomfort. Discomfort means the pitch from the joints (cement highways)Meanwhile, the "handling" remains outstanding. I simply love the way the car goes through curves. At this point I would love ot try a 140 lb spring on the rear, as ot gain something even when cold and make this setup "all season" in terms of comfort. Remember all, we are talking GT here, so, comfort is almost as important as the handling. I am specifically talking real grand turismo, which means leave SF, go to LA for 30 min meeting and get back to SF, all this in one day and without stopping at all (even for fuel). My personal record is Salt Lake City to Chicago in one day (about 1400 miles) with only one stop in the middle for fuel and restroom. So, at this point we are talking here on the "mild" side of GT, not the Porsche GT type of ride quality........ Why do I say this? Because someone may say now "Dude, 150 lb is so soft, how can you still not like it?" Well, if you spend a lot of time in the car AND on crappy roads, you may not like it either..... So, the tasks now are:
a - try to lower the rebound (because it also lowers little bit the compression) and therefore see if this can bring just the little bit comfort I need back.
b - see if Dick would be keen in pushing this even further and make a 140 lb rear spring, which could be also taller buy 0,3 - 0,4 inches. Not about the look, but about the rear clearance I ma having trouble with some time (backing into steep drive way, etc).
2. Never tried sac with Shine all around, but no bar. But guess that would be easy as I have a guy here who's replacing his bar soon, so i will take it for a spin.
3. Never tried those things neither. But again, another guy from LA is coming ot my place two weekend from now and he has Jetta with Stock springs, Koni Yellow and Neuspeed 25 rear, and he will be here the whole weekend, so we will definitely go for a drive and exchange cars, so more to follow.
Want to write more in response to your incredible analysis above, specially to make few points on the "mechanical grip" which is what I am having (gained) so much lately, due to the softer springs, and which is the reason my car is so good through curves, specially when the road is NOT smooth....but have to go now, will stop by again later....hope so.
you all - great weekend!


_Modified by pyce at 10:30 AM 3-27-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Thanks for the report Peter. This proves the fact that the rear stock is somewhere around 130. Oh man, you're trying everything now, eh? 180 Shine, 150ish H&R, 130 stock, and now trying to get 140!!! To be honest I am not sure how much of a real world difference 10 pounds make. Also, note that although you are in love with the front Shine's they're on the stiff side, so at least some of the comfort issue can be contributed to the fronts (not as important as rears ofcourse). The Jetta stock test will probably help to figure out how much comfort can be gained in the front by stock springs. Also, make sure u dial down the Neuspeed rear swaybar to the softest to have as close of a setup to yours for comparisons.
Also, what tires did u have? The ultra performance ones (15,16, or 17) are not very ideal for your GT long journey purposes (ur Yoko AVS). One good performance and relatively comfy tire I tried was Dunlop9000 on my Audi. It's a summer performance tire with very nice ride quality, when I changed it to Michelin Pilot Sport A/S (all-season), even though I went from summer to all-season I lost quite a bit of comfort. The other relatively good performer but comfy tire I've heard about is Sumitomo HTR+, all season, z-rated, very good reviews and EXTREMELY affordable.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

I don't have time to read through all the posts, because they are quite long. But I have this to say: Sometimes using all-season or non-high performance tires DECREASES ride quality. The reason why is that you are introducing two suspension movements into the car(spring and tire), as opposed to having a very stiff sidewall tire and working on the spring alone. Obviously a high performance tire will also have some give, but the soft sidewall tire will need increased rebound dampening with the same spring vs. a high-performance tire. Without the increased dampening, the soft sidewall tire will tend to bounce and pogo, decreasing perceived ride quality significantly.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (tyrolkid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tyrolkid* »_I don't have time to read through all the posts, because they are quite long. But I have this to say: Sometimes using all-season or non-high performance tires DECREASES ride quality. The reason why is that you are introducing two suspension movements into the car(spring and tire), as opposed to having a very stiff sidewall tire and working on the spring alone. Obviously a high performance tire will also have some give, but the soft sidewall tire will need increased rebound dampening with the same spring vs. a high-performance tire. Without the increased dampening, the soft sidewall tire will tend to bounce and pogo, decreasing perceived ride quality significantly.

Quite an interesting point! I have to test that some day. One thing I am quite sure about is that a softer and more forgiving tire is almost in all cases better for "very small" bumps and joints, since the tire would not transfer that small movement into the suspension... like you won't feel the texture of the road. I can imagine that for bigger bumps and irregularities, Mike's point could be valid.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Well, just got back from the garage. Figured out the best way to find out is to actually start again playing with rebound (first time with this 150 lb spring)...... and here we go again - decreased the rear rebound from 50% (1 turn) to about 33-34% (5/8 of a turn). Yeah, decided that the truth may not be on "half turns" so went 5/8 (looking for nirvana here, hey







)........ Well, there is good improvement on the highway cement joints! Noticeable improvement in overall comfort too. The car is back to being pleasant to drive...... The only (for now) drawback is that it feels more "loose", it is not as quick regarding the turn in or any fast change in direction. Of course, it was expected, but it is interesting to note that it is noticeable change, but it is with only less than 20% reduction in rebound. For the few miles I drove it is good, but tomorrow will take it on a long trip and we will see more. All this on Yoko ES-100 which doe snot have super stiff wall, but it is not soft touring tire neither. I will put the touring tires too, and we will see more then. Anyway, this is enough to make me think that we can at least try to make this spring somehow more comfortable - it will just take time to try few rebound combinations. Front was on 75% now, so I guess it may do well if we back it off some..... more tomorrow.
Alex, I do not have Neuspeed bar







I once had such bar, but then replaced it with the Shine. It was more than a year ago......


_Modified by pyce at 2:42 PM 3-28-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, I do not have Neuspeed bar







I once had such bar, but then replaced it with the Shine. It was more than a year ago......

I meant the bar on your friend's Jetta.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Oh, sorry, I did not read it the proper way







I will try to talk him in removing it for this experiment. Let's see what he says. We may need to work more on his car because he drives on low rebound too, so we may need to increase that part too. We will see next weekend for that....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Oh, sorry, I did not read it the proper way







I will try to talk him in removing it for this experiment. Let's see what he says. We may need to work more on his car because he drives on low rebound too, so we may need to increase that part too. We will see next weekend for that....

I didn't mean to make the poor guy take it all apart








The least thing is to put it on the softest setting. Looking forward to hear the report of that.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
....I am in the process of changing my Neuspeed Sport+Bilstein to either a modified KW V1/V2 (with less lowering) or Sofsport+Koni. 

Hi Alex,
How were midterms?








Just curious: how did you decide on these two finalists in particular? Thanks!
-W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Hi Peter!
Just wanted to chime in on your experiments with your (very understanding!) friend's Jetta: if you do manage to disconnect his rear bar, could you please do a back to back comparing "with bar" to "without bar"? The stock-springs-with-light-bar setup is such a common first mod (and it so strongly pushed by the vendors) that it'd be good to see how it sits ride&handling-wise with the Shine-GT setups your experimenting with. Thank you very much!
(By the way, instead of removing his rear bar entirely, perhaps you can disconnect and tie back an endlink?)
On other notes:
1) For your rear shock setting, you write that you've gone down from 1 turn to 3/8 turn: do you mean 3/4 turn, instead of 3/8?
2) When you get the rear damping to where you like it best with the 150 lb springs, could you please summarize how it compares (both ride & handling) to the optimized stock rears? It sounds like you're really zeroing in on the ideal rear spring rate, and at this point there's often a spring/damper tradeoff: sometimes, going a little stiffer on the spring will allow you to go softer on the damping (for equivalent handling), and relative comfort actually goes up a bit; it'd be nice to see if you're at this point or not.
Thanks! - W


_Modified by Ceilidh at 4:03 PM 3-28-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

SORRY! My mistake, who knows why I was typing "3" when it is actually "5"! The rears are at 5/8 of full turn and that is the 33-34%! I did edit the above post too, so it is correct now! Duh, have to learn how to type....
So, I put about 50 miles in the mountains this morning, and then on the cement highway and must say the comfort on the joints is definitely there! It is good now, I can commute with pleasure. It is amazing again what some tweaking of a rear shock did. I also tried 75% Front, then about 60% then the 50% and the softer the better on the joints. Approached the mountains with 34% rear (5/8 turn) and about 62-63% front (1 and 1/4 turn) and funny enough, I felt more grip, even if the car seems to roll little bit more, but really little bit more. It kind of gives the feeling of riding on lower pressure tires, when the tire kind of rolls here and there, but just impression. It is really good grip wise and it is better when the curves are with bad surface (not smooth). All this is on the 15" Yokohama...... Then went home and changed to 16" touring tires and went out running errants. It is slightly worse on those 16", but still good. At least the joints on the cement are taken great, so i can commute on these too.....

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_1) For your rear shock setting, you write that you've gone down from 1 turn to 3/8 turn: do you mean 3/4 turn, instead of 3/8?

It is the 5/8 turn, sorry again, my bad









_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_2) When you get the rear damping to where you like it best with the 150 lb springs, could you please summarize how it compares (both ride & handling) to the optimized stock rears? 

I will sure do so! The thing is, it may take some time, because as we now know better, a lot can be achieved with rebound, so I have to try fe more settings and it is not going to happen today...

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ It sounds like you're really zeroing in on the ideal rear spring rate, and at this point there's often a spring/damper trade off: sometimes, going a little stiffer on the spring will allow you to go softer on the damping (for equivalent handling), and relative comfort actually goes up a bit; it'd be nice to see if you're at this point or not...... 

Great point! And here I would like to use the following as an answer to Alex's question about why talking about 140 lb spring and would 10 lb make difference..... Here is what I think (after learning and trying the things we went through for the last 15 pages), and correct me if I am wrong:
"Mechanical Grip" - I am very glad Winston came out with this explanation few posts back, because it now makes a lot more sense to me. While on the Stock rears, I was having a lot of comfort and a lot of exactly that - mechanical grip. Reported few times how the rear was so well planted, it was like it does not exist. And how the speeds I had in fast curves (specially on bad roads) were very high. But unfortunately, the soft rear makes the car more understeering, and now I have experienced this first hand with the stronger Shine 150 lb rear spring. So, with that stronger rear spring, what happens is that I now have a lot more grip on the front, the car is noticeably less understeering, but I lost little bit of that "mechanical grip" on the rear. Why? Because the 150 lb spring is really stronger than the stock and on uneven surfaces in fast curves the rear kind of jumps little bit up and down and it disturbs the smooth fast going. All these tings I am saying are very minor, really, and one could live with them. The car is really quick and comfy, but as Winston said, we are "zeroing" on the ideal rear spring rate. Ideal meaning the ideal compromise between less understeer and more mechanical grip on the rear. And this is precisely why I said the number 140, because if the stock is really around 130 and this rear now is 150, and we tried both and we know what both give/take, then perhaps the 140 would be the spot on spring. Of course, it may never happen, but I wish I have one to try. Or perhaps I can cut little bit the stock spring as to make it 140 lb and try that one. We will see. I found a shop here, for motorbikes, and they have equipment to test springs and shocks, so I sent them e-mail and waiting for reply. If they can measure car springs, then I will be there ASAP with all my springs and we will know more about what really is the stock spring rates...... The show continues, but I think we are really close now. By page 16 we may have a setup that may really be a nice Grand Touring combo for daily use on bad roads and some fun quick driving in the twisties. I do believe now that a compromise is possible, and think we are close to it :0
ciao
.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
Good stuff! Sounds like you're getting really close! Here are a few random comments:
1) First off, terminology: I was a little sloppy and misleading when I talked about "mechanical grip", as that's normally a term used to contrast suspension-based roadholding vs aero (downforce)-induced roadholding. (My fault for being misleading -- I didn't define my terms.) Perhaps (just in case an open-wheel enthusiast visits this thread and thinks we're crazy) we should call it "rough road" grip, which, although not an official term, is descriptive and fairly correct.








2) I'm a little concerned with how soft the rear is getting, compared with the front, as somewhere below 150lb on the rear, we should start getting some pitch problems on large bumps and whoop-de-do's (assuming 225lb on the front, and a stock 150lb/130lb F/R spring rate). I understand that the comfort issues you have center on the sharp abrupt cracks & ridges you have out there in the Bay area, but do you ever run your car over bigger, slightly smoother bumps on back roads? I would have thought that, with the stock rears & Shine fronts, you would have noticed some pitching (not the fast, annoying jiggle we've discussed, but a slower, bigger pitching motion that'd be especially noticeable on the post-bump landing), and that that pitching would have been lessened with the 150 lb rears. Have you noticed anything to that effect?
Anyway, 140lb is about 7 1/2 % stiffer than 130lb, which is supposedly the difference between Golf and GTI spring rates -- so it's not unreasonable to try a 140, if (and it's a big if) the stock rears really are at about 130. That's great news about the local spring shop being able to measure the spring rates -- it'd be nice to finally know what the spring rates are that we're dealing with!
3) Finally, how much are you rolling now, when compared with stock rears/ Shine front, and also compared with full stock? If you're rolling about the same now as you were with the stock rears /Shine front setup, I'm beginning to wonder whether maybe the solution is to dial back on the fronts (say, to 200 lb instead of 225 lb), and stay with the stock rears. It wouldn't feel quite so tight as what you have now, but perhaps the understeer might be a little less (then again, it might be a little more -- it all depends on how much more roll you'd incur!).
4) A final thing to try might be raising the rears to stock height: about a third of the rear weight transfer is controlled by rear roll center height (that's just an "eyeball" guess; I haven't tried working it out), and the roll center rises and falls almost directly with the rear ride height. The 150lb springs lower you to normal Shine height, correct? If so, it's possible that going slightly softer (for comfort) but raising the rear ride height (to cut understeer) might be a good thing to try next -- in any event, if you find a way to try 140lb springs, try to make them nice and tall!
Once again, congrats on the progress -- sounds like you're on the home stretch!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Check This Out!
So, last night had to prepare the springs I have for the spring tester. I guess the greatest interest is in the Stock rear and the 337 rear, but then I myself wanted to make sure that shop is accurate too, so decided to send the Shine 150 lb spring for the test too. Not to doubt what Dick says, but if the shop comes back and tells me that blue spring is 135 lb. then I will doubt the test...... This meant, the spring had to come out and as I need the car everyday, the only player left in the garage was the H&R OE spring we tried several pages back. So, the H&R goes in and I knew from previous tests it is not really very comfy, but we could stand the ride for few days before the other springs come back....... Well, surprise, surprise! That O.E. called spring is now (with the 16" tires too!) so comfortable, that I am confused again! Time ago it was OK, but was kind of bouncy on certain roads. The difference between now and then is the rebound (little then, more now) and that I then had the half-broken bar below. I think everything else was the same, same tires, wheels, tire pressure, etc..... It is really improvement in comfort. I have no idea what the spring rate is, but it is very comfortable. Drove to work on the cement this morning and the joints are taken very well. It is not as comfy as Stock rear, but it is better than 150 lb rear. All this one the current 33% Rear rebound and 62% Front rebound. Performance wise I can't notice difference, but it was commute anyway, so nothing much to perform. The important part is that the comfort is definitely there on the 16" too! So, eventually the finest rear spring (for my case only, you all can drive on stiffer rears I guess) would be somewhere in between the 150 lb rear and the H&R O.E........ Now, we have to find out what is the spring rate on that one, on the stock one and I guess everything will really come to a good picture. Hope this shop will accept to do the work, so we will know. And if they do not, we will find another shop. I am determined now, we have to know the spring rates, otherwise we can't draw conclusions...... One thing is very sure, we are really close this time (yeah, it was time we get somewhere







).


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Doesn't Shine measure spring rates in their shop, or at least have them measured on a semi routine basis to check them before they are sold? Why not either source a spring tester, or ask Shine if they can test your mystery springs for you? I'll look around and see if I can be of assitance.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Oh man, have u tried different setups or what!!!
A few things: 
- Even if the shop cannot measure the spring rate very accurately, if they measure all the springs similarly you can more or less tell which is stiffer/softer
- OE is supposed to be 10% stiffer than stock, so it could be your ideal 140 spring
- Again, ride is so subjective and dependant on the weather, tempreture, "a$$ comfor factor of the day" ... that it's probably not very easy to measure 
- If I remember correctly last time you had H&R OE, it was with Shine bar, wasn't it? So, it's a different setup now
Good luck man, what you're doing is what tuner shops had to do so we shouldn't suffer like this.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3wheelinWolf)*

Wolfie, you have had some extreme luck with calling places and they telling you spring rates that no one can get







Would you mind trying that magic and see whether you can get any precise info on the H&R O.E. rear springs? I have hopes in you








Alex, yes, it was with the bar then and is with no bar now, and also the rebound now is much higher than what I used to drive in the beginning. I will play with this spring more and who knows, we may get somewhere this time. Looking forward to go home and put more rebound and see what happens....


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Found an intersting link. This seems super easy to do. Check it out Peter.
http://www.off-road.com/dirtbi....html


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*



pyce said:


> Wolfie, you have had some extreme luck with calling places and they telling you spring rates that no one can get
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3wheelinWolf)*

The problem with this method is that the first inch (and only inch) of compression is not enough, not accurate enough. I think the spring has to be compressed by about 6XX lb so to simulate the installed height and then the count starts. In fact, if you look at the picture of the Neuspeed or H&R O.E., they are both having those dead coils that have to be fully seated (become dead) otherwise the spring is too soft. We actually tried the method on the link and went even up to 3" compression (the results are on one of the very first few pages of this topic here) and the confusing part was that the Shine 180 lb spring was the only one with flat 170 lb increments! All the rest (Stock, 337) were "variable" rate..... Started at about 130 lb, then next inch was 150 lb, and the third inch was about 140 lb., so we concluded that such small weight is not enough for accuracy....... But I fully agree with you, it give an idea! The confusion also came from the fact that the Stock rear and 337 rear came almost with the same numbers (with actually the 337 being slightly softer!) and of course, no one here would agree that a 337 rear is softer than Stock rear...... But I think in general gives the idea and therefore we are expecting the stock to be in the 130 - 140 ballpark. With this method thought, it is hard to measure the H&R OE because it really has to seat all the way down to make those 3-4 coils dead and that is pushing it to almost 600 lb and beyond and I really do not want to do so in my garage







thanks a lot for the link thought ...... We will see, if these folks are not so expansive, then perhaps I can collect some more springs from fellow vortexers here, so we test them all. Also, Dick said he will send me his results, so we can publish them on the spring rate topic. The only confusion I have with Dick is, he insists the Stock rear is about 160 lb and my butt says it is not any near 160 lb ..... But I hope we will have some more info for some more confusion this week


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far*

Hi Folks,
I would think that everyone reading this thread is already aware, but just in case anyone's missed it, 3WheelinWolf has posted an excellently-written, very interesting account of what camber changes can do to handling:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1313315
That's not to say whether I (Ceilidh) would recommend this as an early mod! (I've no experience with it, and Wolfie will no doubt tell us what his learnings are as he gains seat time with it...) But it's a good demonstration of how much of our cars' handling characteristics stem from front camber while cornering.
Well done, 3WheelinWolf!
- Ceilidh
P.S. -- Wolf, do you notice any bumpsteer, braking, or corner-entry strangeness (especially in light cornering)? I had 2.5 degree negative camber wishbones on an MG once, and whilst it was fantastic on the track (the turn in was lightning fast, and front grip was amazing), I wound up taking it off because it felt so weird on the road: on-center feel on the highway was not great, and on entry into light, smooth curves (e.g., when the road just bends a bit), there was a distinct 2-step transition as the outside tire went from riding on the inside edge of the tread, to flopping over to the outside edge. At 1-1.5 degrees you might not be experiencing anything weird, but I'm just a little curious -- thanks!


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hi Folks,
I would think that everyone reading this thread is already aware, but just in case anyone's missed it, 3WheelinWolf has posted an excellently-written, very interesting account of what camber changes can do to handling:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1313315
That's not to say whether I (Ceilidh) would recommend this as an early mod! (I've no experience with it, and Wolfie will no doubt tell us what his learnings are as he gains seat time with it...) But it's a good demonstration of how much of our cars' handling characteristics stem from front camber while cornering.
Well done, 3WheelinWolf!
- Ceilidh
P.S. -- Wolf, do you notice any bumpsteer, braking, or corner-entry strangeness (especially in light cornering)? I had 2.5 degree negative camber wishbones on an MG once, and whilst it was fantastic on the track (the turn in was lightning fast, and front grip was amazing), I wound up taking it off because it felt so weird on the road: on-center feel on the highway was not great, and on entry into light, smooth curves (e.g., when the road just bends a bit), there was a distinct 2-step transition as the outside tire went from riding on the inside edge of the tread, to flopping over to the outside edge. At 1-1.5 degrees you might not be experiencing anything weird, but I'm just a little curious -- thanks!

Thank you for the compliments Ceilidh!
My daily commute is about 50 miles round trip, and it involves embarking upon some pretty nasty roads from time to time. So far, I haven't really noticed any real negative aspects of the setup. I have mad a habit of trying to challenge the setup to look for weaknesses (other than comfort) in performance. I have done the following: corning over potholes and expansion joints, braking mid turn, lifting off the throttle mid turn, changing lanes over ruts in the road, and making slow tight u-turns. 
I have noticed that turn-in and response has improved greatly. Small inputs with the steering wheel have immediate reactions. Roll is also slightly reduced under heavy cornering, and is nearly non existant while making slow tight u-turns. The largest factor in the improvement is the removal of the squishy rubber strut mounts being replaced by spherical bearings. The ultra stiff bearings also seem to work really well with the HDs, in that the rebound feels a little more precise. I used to feel floaty at time while cruising over undulations in the riad at highway speeds. I would still like to increase my low speed rebound a tad, but the dampening is definitely complimented by the camber plates.
I am a firm believer that my tire choice (ContiExtreme Contacts on 17x8 wheels if you didn't know. No 15s or 16s here!) is playing a huge role in the comfort and compliance of my daily drive. I have noticed only the smallest increase of tracking over uneven surfaces (ruts) in the pavement. Wider tires tend to do this anyway, but that tendancy has baerly been effected. 
The small degree of camber that I have is preventing my medium-stiff sidewalls from rolling mid turn. The really creates a stronger sense of stability and improves grip on that fast corners. I haven't found any nice S-curves to see how a relatively sudden change in weight transfer would be handled. Anyone know of some good curvy South Jersey roads?
All in all she feels really good on the road. Please feel free to ask more questions, as this is the easiest way to get information!


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3wheelinWolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3wheelinWolf* »_
Roll is also slightly reduced under heavy cornering, and is nearly non existant while making slow tight u-turns.

It seems to me that increased camber would provide more grip. I'm under the impression that you've kept all your other suspension components the same. Therefore, if you have more grip you should have more roll, not less.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (virtual_dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_Therefore, if you have more grip you should have more roll, not less.

Absolutely increased static camber provides sharper turn-in and greater ultimate grip http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I believe the reduction in perceived roll is due to removing the compliant strut rubbers, and replacing them with solid plate steel and bearings.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*

*Totally Off topic* - but this is my next car: http://www.autosite.com/Previe...e.asp 
Anyone who's looking for handling has to look at this car, for the price you can NOT beat it. I read in a Car&Driver review that in slalom it SMOKED all cars in the lineup including Porcshes and Ferraris. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Added benefit, fuel consumption 40mpg in the city, 50mpg on the highway








Cannot wait to finish school, get a job and make money to afford this car!!!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_*Totally Off topic* - but this is my next car: http://www.autosite.com/Previe...e.asp 
Anyone who's looking for handling has to look at this car, for the price you can NOT beat it. I read in a Car&Driver review that in slalom it SMOKED all cars in the lineup including Porcshes and Ferraris. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Added benefit, fuel consumption 40mpg in the city, 50mpg on the highway








Cannot wait to finish school, get a job and make money to afford this car!!!

Hello Alex,
I'm right with you there!!!
I lived in London during 1999 (last semester of grad school -- Alex, you should scope out the opportunities to travel & study abroad; there are many more possibilities than most people realize(!)), and there were series-I Elises all over the place (people parked amazing cars on the side of the road down in South Kensington: Ferrari 456's, Aston Martin DB-7's, a Maserati Khamsin, Morgan Plus-8's, etc. -- we used to just wander the streets checking out the nice vehicles...







). There was a Lotus dealership down the road from my flat, and just sitting in an Elise (I didn't have the nerve to ask for a test drive) will make you laugh at any other manufacturer's claim to have a "race car cockpit & controls" -- the thing just wraps itself around you, and every control is located just so. There was a fellow who used to drive by in one every weekend, and you could tell just from the way it would flick around the roundabouts and city corners that it was one tight, agile, quick quick car. It's been my dream vehicle for years.
The only thing is, if I had my druthers, I'd like the series-1 Euro version. The U.S.-spec Elise in particular is a lot more powerful, and a lot heavier, than the original round-headlamp car. Plus the original Elise didn't have carpets, air-con, or power anything, and with the reduction in weight it was supposedly almost as quick (lower top end speed of course, but acceleration was on par). With narrower tires and less mass to move, it supposedly felt a little sweeter and more fun -- and without anything in the way of creature comforts, it's said to have felt even more like a race car....Still, I wouldn't turn down the keys if someone offered me the U.S.-spec car!
Anyway, I'll never be able to afford one, but I hope you soon will!!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Alex, you should scope out the opportunities to travel & study abroad; there are many more possibilities than most people realize(!))
......
Anyway, I'll never be able to afford one, but I hope you soon will!!
- W

I am plannig to do a term in Copenhagen http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
It's only 39K for base model, pretty good bang for the buck!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

An old article for you Alex ......
http://www.sportcompactcarweb....oblot/


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_An old article for you Alex ......
http://www.sportcompactcarweb....oblot/

3 seconds a lap quciker than Cobra!!! Amazing, that's what I call engineering http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 1710 lbs, 50MPG supercar, 4.4 0-60, stock 12.6 quarter miles, 1.02G grip!!! can't get better than this.



_Modified by alexb75 at 12:58 PM 4-1-2004_


----------



## Banditt007 (Oct 23, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

lotus runs on 175 wide front tires! lol, its so dam light i guess it can get away w/ it.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (6 - Road Race & Shine)*

(Alex, check out the current (April) issue of CAR magazine: there's a test of the U.S. version of the Elise...







)

Road Racing, and the Shine Real Street Suspension
Hello Everyone,
Just to give you an idea where we are: (Peter) Pyce and Tyrolkid are off working on some pretty interesting experiments, which should bear fruit over the next few weeks, and yours truly (Ceilidh) has been watching 3WheelinWolf's experiments with -1.5 degree camber plates. So we've been on hold for a while, waiting to see the latest results before trying to say anything definitive.
While we're waiting, however, we can still take a brief look at the general characteristics of a decent road-race setup, after which we'll touch for a moment on a setup that gets a lot of press in these pages: the Shine SRSS.
Backdrop
If you can remember back to the Autocross installment, we started there by considering what the ideal setup would be if we ran on perfectly smooth roads (e.g., lower the car to drop the CG, stiffen the springs and bars hugely to reduce roll, go to negative camber to keep the outside tires upright, install ultrastiff shocks to control body movements during transitions, etc.); then we looked at how the unavoidable presence of bumps -- even on a smooth autocross track -- forces us to dial back on those "ideal" suspension mods; and finally we concluded by observing that, for autocross at least, the jury's still out on what's the ideal compromise....
If there's room for Golf/Jetta IV variety in Autocross, it'll be because of a tradeoff between the simplistic benefits of lowering & stiffening vs. the more subtle ability to maintain traction and control on bumps and rough surfaces. Because Autocross surfaces are in fact fairly smooth, and because the low vehicle speeds in Autocrossing make the bumps seem even smaller, it's conceivable that a low, very stiff setup might actually work (we'll leave it to experts like Tyrolkid et al to comment on whether such setups do or do not work in reality -- all we're saying here is that if such setups are to work at all, it'd be in Autocross...).
When we get to road racing, however, the much higher speeds and more varied terrain mean we can no longer even pretend to ignore the bumps, and that seems to pretty much rule out the ultrastiff, very low setups for the Golf/Jetta IV. In the Autocross installment, we touched on some of the reasons why that might be so, but let's now look at it with a little more detail:
Spring Rates and Mechanical / Rough Road Grip
As discussed earlier, for every combination of road surface, vehicle weight, unsprung weight, tire stiffness, and vehicle speed, there is a certain suspension spring rate (and shock damping) that will maximize tire grip. If the spring is too stiff, the vehicle is thrown into the air with every bump; if the spring is too soft, the vehicle might ride smoothly, but the inertia of the unsprung weight will carry the tires upwards and off the ground on each bump, and the springs will be too weak to force them back down. Both situations will lead to the tires unloading on the back side of bumps (in the too-stiff case, because the whole vehicle is rigidly leaping about; in the too-soft case, because the tires alone are hopping up and down), and traction is therefore lost.
(As an aside, the above is one of the several reasons why traditional sport utilities & trucks ride and handle so badly on rutted pavement: an old truck-based SUV has very heavy solid axles with a lot of inertia, and that causes the axles to leap about on rough roads. Soften the springs for a better ride, and the axles bounce around almost uncontrollably; stiffen the springs to force the tires back onto the pavement, and the whole truck gets jolted with every bump. It's partly for this reason that almost all the new generation SUVs are going over to independent suspension: one advantage of independent suspension (on a driven axle) is drastically reduced unsprung weight...)
So, in theory one has to carefully choose the spring rate on a car to maximize traction on a real road or track, as too-stiff and too-soft are both problematic. But in practice, at least with Golf/Jetta IV's, we don't have to worry about too-soft. Our independently-suspended cars are heavy, and the CG (even on a slammed car) is high relative to the track and wheelbase; hence if we start softening the springs, we run into problems with body roll, dive, squat, heave, etc. long before the unsprung weight gets out of control.
Or to put it another way: to control the body motions on our cars, we have to stiffen the springs enough that they are almost always too stiff for optimal mechanical grip. Hence, in practical terms, we have a more or less clear-cut tradeoff: stiffen the springs to control roll (and pitch, heave, etc.), or soften them to improve the tires' grip on the track.
Implications of Reduced Spring Rate -- Why Lowering Causes Problems
Thus because of bumps, we can't arbitrarily stiffen the springs to control roll. (And remember from the earliest installments: if the car rolls, the stock Golf/Jetta suspension is intentionally designed so as to progressively lean the outside front tire, which reduces grip and causes moderate to heavy understeer.) So once we leave the smooth, low speeds of the autocross track (and some would argue even *on* the smooth, slow autocross tracks), we have to soften the springs. And that softening causes a whole litany of problems for a lowered car, of which we'll highlight two of the biggest:
1) When we earlier discussed the "ideal" setup on a "perfect", smooth autocross track, we rather naively imagined that we could stiffen the springs to the point that the chassis no longer moved: our "perfect" setup wouldn't roll in corners, and neither would it pitch, dive, or squat under acceleration or braking. Whether or not that's a reasonable approximation on an autocross track is something we'll let the autocrossers debate, but once we're on a real road-race track, with real bumps and realistic spring rates, we can no longer pretend the body isn't moving around. It will move relative to the wheels as the car accelerates, decelerates, corners, and encounters bumps. And that movement has some big geometric implications, particularly at the front suspension:
For a variety of geometric and packaging reasons, it's almost impossible to design a production car front suspension that doesn't "bump steer": when the front wheels move up and down relative to the chassis, they don't stay pointing straight ahead -- instead, at some point they will begin to toe-in or toe-out.
Such toeing would be pretty undesirable for fairly obvious reasons: it means that the toe setting changes when the car pitches forward under braking, or when it pitches back under acceleration, or when it rises and falls over bumps. Even worse, if the car rolls, one tire might be toeing in while the other is toeing out (because one wheel is rising while the other is falling), which steers the car to one side (called "roll steer"); or if one wheel hits a bump but the other doesn't, the bumped wheel can toe in or out while the other keeps pointing straight, which again steers the car (called "bump steer"). Mix and match these various situations -- e.g., let's simultaneously decelerate and roll the car via trail-braking, and then hit a one-wheel bump on corner entry -- and the combined roll and bump steer effects can be extremely entertaining and ever-changing, thereby inspiring the driver to generously & politely compliment the race engineer for the wonderful setup (drivers really love race cars that dart about unpredictably in corners)....
As even production car suspension designers don't like to be shouted at, a good deal of engineering time is spent making sure that bump steer is rarely an issue in the normal life of a car. In practice that means specifying a geometry that crams all the toeing to the far limits of the suspension motions: so long as the wheels are moving up and down to positions reasonably close to the static load position, the toeing is negligible; only when the wheels move close to full jounce (all the way up) or full rebound (or all the way down) does the toeing become pronounced (if you look at a graph of toe vs. suspension movement, the graph is often a straight line (essentially zero toeing) for a good distance above and below the static load position, but then takes a pronounced hook as it approaches full jounce or full rebound). In this way bump & roll steer are ordinarily non-issues: under normal braking, accelerating, and cornering, the car handles fine, and bumpsteer only shows up on bumps so enormous that any steering effect is swamped out by all the other violent things that must be simultaneously going on.
So what happens when you drastically lower a production car? In severe cases, you move the static load position (the position where the suspension sits and works around) right into the region that contains all the bump steer. And so the car bump steers. It also roll steers. And the turn-in characteristics (which are greatly affected by toe in and toe out) will vary wildly depending on how hard you brake during corner entry, or whether you're hitting 2-wheel bumps. In short, your "race car" will adopt many of the delightful handling characteristics of a 1940's Buick, minus the comfortable ride and cool hubcaps.
(2 notes here: one is that the rear suspension will bump & roll steer as well, though the effect is usually less pronounced than in the front; the other is that it's standard practice to "bump steer" (meaning, to "reduce the bump steer effect on") a radically lowered car by changing the positions of the steering rack and steering arm pickup points; but I've never seen any discussion of such on the VW forums -- probably because the next point (below) makes the issue moot)
2) The second effect is one that's been discussed to death elsewhere on this forum, and which we'll only repeat here so as to put in the context of the earlier installments: Almost everyone following this thread will have already read somewhere that lowering a McPherson strut suspension will increase the tendency to roll. Some readers, however, might have wondered why that's an issue: if the car tends to roll more, why can't we just stiffen the springs to compensate?
The reason, as it should be clear by now, is that we can't arbitrarily stiffen the springs. If we stiffen everything so as to reduce roll, we lose mechanical grip over realistic bumps; if we soften the springs to increase mechanical grip, we roll the outside front tire into adverse camber. Catch-22. What we need, then, is a way to reduce roll without going crazy on the spring rates. And we can do that by keeping the roll center nice and high.
Such the reason for Dick Shine's oft-repeated assertion (oft-repeated not because he's been unclear, but because so many people seem unwilling to believe him) that lowering the front end of a Golf/Jetta IV will destroy the handling. If you don't keep the roll center fairly high, you lose grip either through increased roll & adverse cambering of the outside tire, or else through having to control the roll with overly stiffened springs. (Note: we'll not discuss drop spindles and major component swaps here -- please refer to Tyrolkid's threads for those topics).
Or to summarize it another way: there are three big means of increasing/ maintaining the cornering ability on our cars: (1) keeping the tires more upright by reducing roll; (2) retaining mechanical grip by not letting the spring rates get out of hand; and (3) reducing the total lateral weight transfer by lowering the CG. On a Golf/Jetta IV, #1 is the most important, and #3 is the least. Hence optimizing #3 while compromising #1 and/or #2 is not the way to go.
[Hmm. I tried to post, and was told I've exceeded the word limit. I guess I'll break the post here, and will add the second half sometime later this weekend (at least it'll help keep the thread from sinking too far down). Good night folks -- more coming in a couple of days!







]

_Modified by Ceilidh at 9:54 AM 4-3-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:08 AM 4-3-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (6-continued: Road-race & Shine)*

Hello Everyone,
Back again.







In re-reading the earlier post, I see that somewhere along the way I morphed from true "road-race" to "streetable semi-track" setups; sorry about that. Most of what we're talking about now concerns cars that live somewhere between road and track, and our ultimate destination (given the original topic of this thread) is the GT suspension. In any case, for true road-course track cars, please give John A, Dick Shine, Daemon42, and the other racers a shout, as I (Ceilidh) am not familiar with VW track setups; for the cars we're talking about here, rough road performance is becoming increasingly important.
Right. Where were we? At the end of the last installment, we reviewed the oft-discussed reasons for why we have to keep the front end high. Now we'll clear up some additional points, and then go into just how high is high enough:

Caveats and Additional Notes
A) Before I forget: road racers tend to go for negative camber, which is beneficial on the track for a number of reasons (see Carroll Smith's "Tune to Win" for a discussion). I'll let Wolf, Tyrol, and Dick Shine have the word on this one, as it's nothing I've had personal experience with on FWD cars. Wolf certainly seems to be having good success with his -1.5 degree Shine mod, and I'm sure he'll tell us more in the future. As a personal caveat (from my experiences with "bigger" negative camber on RWD cars): if you overdo it, you can mess up your braking (the tires no longer sit flat even when the car's on the straight, and brake-dive makes the cambering even worse); you might wear your tires pretty unevenly (the inside edges go first, if you're not regularly cornering hard); you can lose on-center feel and a nice street-style progression on gentle curves (the steering becomes 2-step: first you're riding on the inside tire edges, then at some point in a corner the outside tire flops down flat and begins rolling onto the outside edge); and sometimes you get tramlining issues. But Wolf's camber mod isn't terribly huge, and thus it'll be interesting to see what he discovers (Go, Wolf!).
B) On a different note: some of you might be wondering "Why does Ceilidh keep going on about stiff springs? If the problem concerns roll vs. mechanical grip, why not use soft springs for grip, and reduce roll with antiroll bars?". That's a fine question, which we'll go more into later when we get to GT setups, but for now please just consider that a stiff bar (1) increases the 1-wheel bump rate; (2) reduces the independent action of a supposedly "independent suspension"; and (3) makes it hard to tune the shock damping to simultaneously suit 1-wheel and 2-wheel bumps. All these factors reduce mechanical grip, and thus there's a practical limit to how stiff the bar can be. In short, bars are nice, and they allow you to control roll with softer springs (compared to what you need if you didn't have bars at all), but ultimately you still have to worry about spring rate.
C) Last note: One thing I've completely ignored up to now is the degree of camber gain under roll (which determines how upright the tires stay as the car rolls). It's an important concept, but I've left it out because it's so straightforward, and because it's been so well explained on other threads. But for completeness: a McPherson strut suspension that's rolling will initially tend to keep the outside tire more or less upright; but with increasing roll, the outside tire will begin to lean (and thus incur camber thrust, reduced traction, etc.). When a strut suspension is dropped via lowering springs, the effect on the outside tire is curious: at small angles of vehicle roll, the tire is more upright than before; but at greater roll angles, the tire actually leans more than in the stock case. Hence if you try to lower the CG by installing lowering springs, and then try to maintain mechanical grip by keeping the springs relatively soft, not only do you get more roll, but the adverse camber on the critically-important outside front tire is even worse than you'd first expect.

How High Should the Front Suspension Ride?
Everything up to now has been qualitative: we've discussed why a lowish front roll center can be bad; how excessive lowering can cause bumpsteer problems; and how there are camber-gain issues if we lower too much and allow too much roll. But does that mean we can't lower at all, and should we be pushing things much higher than stock?
The second question is more easily dealt with: One might ask -- given that a stock front ride height is good -- whether a much-higher-than-stock front would be even better. The short answer is "No": aside from the bump steer problems you'd get from pushing the car towards the extremes of rebound (vs. jounce, with lowering springs), at some point the increased lateral weight transfer you get from a high CG (plus the positive static camber you get from a raised McPherson geometry) will hurt you more than you'll benefit from reducing roll and/or spring rate. So it's very possible to go too high.
The other question is less easy to answer: just where should the front end sit? The roll-center and camber-gain phenomena are not "step functions" -- it's not a case of, go 1mm too low and WHAM! the car is screwed up. And bumpsteer should not be an issue (on any modern production car) if you're within an inch or so of stock height, at the very least. So maybe we can go down an inch, or a half inch, or somewhere in between? In short:
"How low is too low?", and "How can one tell what's best?".
The answer to the first question is "It depends.", and the response to the second is that, unless you want to exhaustively test lots of different setups, "You'll just have to trust someone".
Let's explain: 
For every car, there will be a magic combination of ride height and spring rate that will optimize the combination of (1) reduction in roll; (2) maximization of mechanical grip; (3) best use of camber gain in roll; and (4) minimization of total lateral weight transfer. That magic combination does not, a priori, have to be at stock height, and it will not be the same for all cars -- not even all cars that use a McPherson front suspension. For example, some people have suggested that BMW's seem to work just fine with moderate lowering; well, that's entirely possible. But as BMW's have a different CG height, track width, tire & rim size, camber gain, suspension travel, etc. from our VW's, their ability to work with lowering tells us nothing about what will work best with the Golf/Jetta IV.
Since this particular issue comes up so often on various threads, it might be worth repeating: just because race winning Beemers, or Hondas, or Toyotas, or etc. happen to use a particular ride height, doesn't mean that a VW should be set up the same way. Every car model is unique, and the optimum chassis setup is similarly unique.
So while I'm afraid it'll sound like a major cop-out, if we want to know what the ideal ride height is for a Golf/Jetta IV, and if we don't want to expend vast sums of $ and time to experiment with different combinations, we pretty much have to rely on the judgement of people who (1) have themselves performed lots of experiments; who (2) possess the experience and the know-how to assess what those experiments are telling them; and who (3) don't have an enormous amount to gain by telling us something that's not true.
So whom do we believe about what's best for the Golf/Jetta IV? Well, every person on this forum will have to decide for him/herself (that's one reason why we're writing these suspension guides -- so that people can have a basis to judge what & whom to believe). But for what it's worth, I (Ceilidh) would vote for Dick Shine. I've never met Mr. Shine, nor have I spoken with or communicated with him, and I've never purchased or even tried any of his products -- which in many ways makes me completely unqualified to say anything about him! But everything he's ever posted on this forum has made perfect sense, both from a theoretical and practical perspective, and no independent businessman (a dabbling, wealthy eccentric, perhaps, but not a New Englander who has to make a living on his products) would ever come out with a suspension setup as, um, unusual-looking as the Shine SRSS -- unless it actually worked.
I'd also vote for Peter Pyce & his various hands-on collaborators. Peter will be the first one to protest that he's just a suspension novice and is learning as he goes, but he's been going through an awful lot of setups, and has absolutely nothing to gain from supporting one particular setup over another; hence his findings (or more accurately, what he's uncovering in collaboration with GTItraveler, f1forkvr6, OldmanTDI, 3WheelinWolf, Tyrolkid, Alexb75, Daemon42, and others) can be pretty instructive.
As Dick Shine and Pyce & Company all seem to be converging on the same ride height (at least for cars using stock components (i.e., without spindle/ arm/ etc. swaps)), it looks like the Shine height (0 to 0.5" above - not below - stock) is probably the way to go. For all those who would like to lower, sorry.








To summarize, repeat, and stress once again: there's nothing inherent about a McPherson strut front suspension that requires the ideal performance variant to sit 0.5" above stock -- but neither is there any reason for it to be at any other height, whether higher or lower. What determines the ideal height is the particular combination of parameters (CG location, track & wheelbase, camber gain, etc.) designed into a particular car, and we as ordinary consumers have to trust somebody who has exhaustively tested different combinations to determine what is best. I (Ceilidh) would tend to trust Dick Shine, but you (dear reader) will have to decide for yourselves whom you will listen to! But regardless of whom you choose, please pick your "expert" on the basis of what he/she says concerning issues other than ride height (that is, how credible is this person on other issues?) -- regarding the Golf/Jetta IV front ride height, there is no a priori reason why it should be high, low, or anything in between.

The Shine Setup
And finally (and this will have to be brief, as I'm late for a meeting! ) -- if we take as a given that the Shine SRSS works well as a mild track setup, here's a possible theoretical explanation for it (Dick Shine, please do chime in and correct me if I go astray here!).
From the perspective of an outside armchair observer, the Shine philosophy seems to be to:
A) keep the front at or just above stock height to minimize roll with the use of reasonable spring rates;
B) increase front spring rates to control roll and pitch, but to keep the rates moderate, so as to retain maximum front mechanical grip;
C) refrain from increasing the front bar beyond stock size, again so as to maximize front mechanical grip (as briefly explained above);
D) increase rear spring rate to the limits of good mechanical grip and a tolerable ride while maintaining good balance for at-the-limit cornering;
E) drop the rear ride height so as to lower the overall CG (the rear roll center drops slightly less rapidly than does the CG, so the overall roll couple is also somewhat reduced); (this lowering of the rear also allows for more stiffening of the springs & bars, as it helps keep the car from getting too tail-happy)
F) provide the option of a rear bar to adjust handling balance, particularly in transitions. For reasons we'll discuss in a future installment, the rear bar does not significantly affect the ultimate grip of the Shine suspension (when the car is three-wheeling), but it sharpens turn-in by keeping the car flatter (on turn-in and transitions) and by increasing lateral weight transfer at the rear (again, primarily on turn-in and transitions). To have a noticeable effect on what is already a moderately stiffened suspension, the rear bar has to be fairly stiff; this stiff bar reduces mechanical grip in the rear for all the reasons alluded to earlier, but as the purpose of the bar is to reduce understeer in the appropriate situations, this loss of grip is acceptable.
Mr. Shine, if I've got anything wrong here, please do correct me. For everyone else, we'll pick up from here on the next installment. Cheers and good day!
- W
_Modified by Ceilidh at 11:59 AM 4-4-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:08 AM 4-5-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

In looking through what I wrote, I noticed I left Alexb75's name from the list of contributors -- sorry Alex! I've corrected the omission with an edit; when you have a chance, please tell us more about the setups you want to try next, and why(!).








Just a clarifying note for the novices: if you see forum discussions about whether or not the lower control arms on a particular front suspension are level / horizontal, those discussions are indirectly talking about (1) camber-gain-in-roll and (2) roll center height.
In broad terms, when the control arms are obviously sloping upwards (going from inner pivot towards the wheel), then you are near (or beyond) the point where the outer wheel in a corner begins to lean over faster than the car rolls, and the front roll center has probably dropped below ground level. Both effects are bad for cornering power, for all the reasons discussed above (i.e., because of increased roll in the corners (roll center effect), and because of increased adverse camber for any given angle of roll (camber gain effect)).
As a mild aside, there's nothing particularly magical about horizontal arms (the arms can be designed to rest at a variety of angles; on some cars they're intended to slope downwards), and the slope angle should best be treated as a rough visual check to see if something's grossly wrong.
More fundamentally, as the preceding post tried (perhaps badly!) to explain, the roll center height and the camber gain curve are but two of the several factors that determine optimal ride height (total weight transfer due to CG height, and rough-road mechanical grip due to spring rate are two other important ones), and thus one shouldn't get too hung up about the precise angle of the control arms -- what's more important is the final optimal ride height determined by a careful and knowledgeable tester. (That is, if the best compromise of weight transfer/ mechanical grip/ camber gain/ roll angle yields slightly sloped control arms (in either direction, up or down), don't worry about the control arms not being level!)
Folks, I might have to disappear for a week or so (I'll try to post again, but this coming week is looking pretty busy...). Peter, if you get a chance to try out friends' cars with rear bars/ stock springs, and/or Shine w/o bar, please do post up your impressions (and anyone else, please chime in if you've any experience you think might be useful). We're up to the point in the guide where we should start discussing GT suspensions, and ideally we'd like to come up with 2, and possibly 3, intermediate setups between Stock w/Konis "Stage 1") and Full Shine ("Stage 4 or 5"). I've got some proposals I can put up for discussion, but I'll leave it up to you all to decide whether we should discuss them offline or in this thread; in any case, your collective wisdom would be very helpful here!








(Just to give you a taste of the sort of issues it'd be nice to discuss: a very common first mod for FWD cars is a light rear bar on stock springs; something like a Neuspeed 25mm bar on soft or medium setting.  I had something like that on my old Fiesta (yes, 53 hp -- the ultimate "Slow Car Fast"!), and it had a pleasant though not earth-shattering effect. Given the ubiquity of this mod, two questions come to mind: is it worth doing at all for the Golf/Jetta IV, and (assuming it's worth doing) should it come before or after Konis-on-stock-springs? On a lot of FWD cars, it'd be the first thing to do -- but on the Golf/Jetta IV, I'm wondering.....for one thing, the stock low-piston speed damping on these cars really is atrocious (suggesting perhaps that Konis should come first); for another, the stock front springs are so soft and the rear wheel lifts so easily, that maybe a rear bar should only be used to tweak the handling balance within a stage, rather than constitute a distinct stage in itself. So gentlemen, a comparison of stock spring/ rear bar vs. other setups would be really helpful here!)
Anyway, if I do disappear for a week, my apologies -- hope you all have a nice start to the month. Cheers!








- Ceilidh (W)


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
From the perspective of an outside armchair observer, the Shine philosophy seems to be to:
A) keep the front at or just above stock height to minimize roll with the use of reasonable spring rates;


The flip side of this being that when you lower the car and the roll center drops quickly, it
requires higher rate springs or a big front sway bar to counter the increased tendency to roll. 
So yes, Shine is looking to control the roll with the lowest spring rates possible (still well 
above stock rates) and they pull it off, by not lowering the car.

_Quote »_
B) increase front spring rates to control roll and pitch, but to keep the rates moderate, so as to retain maximum front mechanical grip;


That and to avoid the use of a larger front swaybar, which has negative effects on
motive traction, because it pulls weight off the inside front tire while cornering.
Shine wants cars that can stay on the gas in a hard corner, because on a road course,
corner exit speed wins the race, because it's added speed that you get to
use down the entire length of the following straight.

_Quote »_
C) refrain from increasing the front bar beyond stock size, again so as to maximize front mechanical grip (as briefly explained above);


Actually Shine's philosophy is that the front bar shouldn't be necessary at all. That their front springs
and dampers should be able to fully control body roll/dive and removing the front bar increases inside front
motive traction, by decreasing weight transfer caused by the bar. See above. That said, *most* people 
who run the Shine setup, keep the stock front bar because without it the rear end can feel a little 
or a lot loose (depends a lot on the tires). 

_Quote »_
D) increase rear spring rate to the limits of good mechanical grip and a tolerable ride while maintaining good balance for at-the-limit cornering;


That, and make sure that front and rear spring rates are matched to each other and the geometry and
weight distribution of the car, so that one end isn't bouncing up and down out of sync with the other. 

_Quote »_
E) drop the rear ride height so as to lower the overall CG (the rear roll center drops slightly less rapidly than does the CG, so the overall roll couple is also somewhat reduced); (this lowering of the rear also allows for more stiffening of the springs & bars, as it helps keep the car from getting too tail-happy)


And leaving the car in a true level stance. 

_Quote »_
F) provide the option of a rear bar to adjust handling balance, particularly in transitions. 


I don't think Shine considers the rear bar an "optional" part their philosphy. I personally believe 
the rear bar is *half* the Shine equation. Yes, there are some who have chosen not to use the 
Shine rear bar, or any rear bar for that matter while following the rest of the Shine formula, but I 
wouldn't call that a Shine suspension, or even a Shine "Lite" suspension. It's just a suspension with 
uprated springs and dampers. A Shine suspension *feels* neutral in fast corners and
has induceable oversteer. Take away the rear bar, and that goes away. It
may still be very fast in the corners, but it doesn't feel the same.

_Quote »_ For reasons we'll discuss in a future installment, the rear bar does not significantly affect the ultimate grip of the Shine suspension (when the car is three-wheeling),


Actually yes, a big rear bar can have a net positive effect on lateral traction
and I believe the Shine bar accomplishes that.
I explain it here http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...77459
By using the rear bar to cause the car to be supported on only 3
points instead of four, you have a decrease in net lateral traction at
the rear end of the car, which can afford to give it up, and creates a gain in 
traction at the inside front tire both for motive and lateral purposes. Since the 
front end does a vast majority of the work on our FWD cars (and is usually the 
first to give up), a gain in traction at the front, ends up being a net positive 
gain overall. 

_Quote »_
but it sharpens turn-in by keeping the car flatter (on turn-in and transitions) and by increasing lateral weight transfer at the rear (again, primarily on turn-in and transitions). 


I find that the front springs and dampers have a greater effect on turn-in response,
and the rear bar has a greater effect on continous cornering feel, and yes it helps keep the
car more level up to a point. 

_Quote »_ To have a noticeable effect on what is already a moderately stiffened suspension, the rear bar has to be fairly stiff; this stiff bar reduces mechanical grip in the rear for all the reasons alluded to earlier, but as the purpose of the bar is to reduce understeer in the appropriate situations, this loss of grip is acceptable.


Agreed there, except for your limited definition of what its true purpose is. 
Its purpose is to transfer weight from the inside rear to the inside front tire via the 
mechanism I described in the linked thread. Whether you use that for increased lateral grip, 
or so you can get on the gas for increased motive grip, the rear bar is up to you. 
Either way it's a net positive gain. 
Oh, and it's not "fairly stiff", it's the stiffest bar available.
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Some more findings .....*

It was very long and interesting car dedicated weekend. A lot of things were done to mine and other cars as well, all in a very short time, in an attempt to try to go quickly over the most important steps we had been through for the last few months. When everything is done in a day or two, the comparison is even easier, so I now feel more comfortable to draw some conclusions...... Here is more or less what we managed to accomplish this weekend (not in order of importance, but have to start from somewhere):
1. Current setup for the last week or so was 225 lb front, H&R OE rear, Koni 75%F and 33%R. That setup is good on 16" and on 15". Great ride quality (for me). On Saturday increased the rebound to where it was before with the 150 lb rear, so it went to 50% rear rebound. It made the ride slightly firmer, but the turn in improved noticeable again! So, now we have tried 4 different springs on the rear and on all 4 when the rebound goes near the 50% range, there is really noticeable improvement in turn in and the overall handling feel jumps up significantly. This only small modification made the whole setup very com[arable to the 150 lb spring from Shine. My guess at this point is that the spring rates are very close, but perhaps the H&R OE spring is on the softer side. With everything now equal (tires, wheels, rebound front and rear, etc), the H&R rear is more comfortable than the 150 lb Shine. It is not huge difference (almost feel the same) on 15" Yokos, but on the 16" Touring the difference is noticeable. Anyway, both springs came out last night, as I am going to send them to the tester. Then we will have very good picture of where the sweet spot spring rate for the rear could be in numbers.....
2. Finally had a chance to drive that Wagon I was mentioning before about. Stock springs all around, Koni Yellow all around, and a Neuspeed 25 rear bar. Actually, he has the front spring from heavier VR6 GLI sport package, so it is even strongest than the stock 2.0/TDI front spring. If you remember, we were even planning to remove the bar as to bring the setup closer to mine (stock bars only), but we did not go that far, because there was really no need to remove the bar, and here is why: That setup is so soft, so comfortable and leans in the curves so much, that we figured out if we remove the rear bar it would be even worse and there was really no point as even with the bar I made my idea of what such setup is (relatively). So, dear Winston (this is mostly for you), I think I know what you are running now and have to tell you (for disappointment or not) that is quiet far from what same setup is, but with only the 225 lb front springs! I do presume (maybe wrongly) that the 25 Neuspeed bar does NOT do a lot in there, because if good part of that roll is reduced from the bar, then if there was so bar, I simply would not like to drive that car at all. Now, of course the car was also set on rebound very close to where you run yours for comfort (about 3/8 rear and 3/8 front), so we know that plays a lot for the feel, but I also know what my car is on front Shine - Stock rear when the rebound is this low, and really, the difference is substantial. I am now almost convinced that the most important part to make our cars to begin perform is the front springs! You make those soft or make them lower - most of the game is lost right there. You may even put bars and shocks and who knows what else, but a proper strong and tall front spring will offset all that and still make more difference. I know it is a strong statement, but this is my feel as per today. Now, regarding comfort, the stock setup with Koni (his) is much more comfortable than even the mildest I ever had. That thing is plain comfy and it is such a pleasure to drive it on any road. Winston, this precise comparison (comfort) makes me think that you may actually not like the front Shine with whatever rear spring. I have been following how you played with rebound on your stock springs setup as to gain max comfort and how little change in rebound made you feel uncomfortable, so I think that your boundary is really near to what the stock spring rate offer, and you can go above and below that boundary with rebound setting...... If you just replace the front springs with Shine 225 lb, you will be well past that boundary and no matter what you do with any rebound, you will never be able to be back below the boundary! Yes, we found that the rear is more important for comfort, but now I found exactly how important is the front as well, and it is not little importance. Softening the rear made the big jump back into comfort territory, but the front still keeps you back in the relatively "uncomfortable" area. I would shoot in the dark and say the ratio (responsibility for perceived comfort) could be from 60-40 to 70-30. I mean, my butt in my situation says the rear is responsible for about 60 to 70% of the general comfort. The front still plays important role, but it is not fifty-fifty. Therefore, dear Winston, I am really not sure you would enjoy what I am living with here daily...... I think your comfort requirement is higher than mine and not by little....... 
3. As to have even better comparison between the stock springs - koni around vs. the same but with Shine front - we pulled out the H&R OE and installed back the good old rear stock spring. It was noticeable improvement in comfort (this is still with he Yoko 15") but it is also noticeable change in turn-in and general "tightness" of the car. It rolls little bit more, but again, it is not anything near what stock springs all around plus Koni all around offer (or lack of offer). So, I think this is an important point here, in which I finally managed to realize, by replacing the front stock spring with Shine front, how much this give in "handling" and how much it takes from the ride quality. To me it is absolutely fare trade off. Again, to me, I am absolutely ready to trade off this much comfort as to gain this much handling characteristics. The issue here is that I can not explain the comfort trade-off with words and therefore it is very difficult to make a statement like "Shine front is definitely the first mod to do towards GT suspension setup", because to someone here it may already be too much of "lost" comfort. On my scale, I lost comfort 3 and got handling characteristics 5-6 and while we can argue the handling gains, we can not even compare the comfort numbers as they really vary among all of us. But a statement I can comfortably do is: If you have to change one single component on a car with stock springs and Koni shocks as to achieve the biggest improvement in handling characteristics, that would be by far the Front Spring and it HAS to be replaced with stock ride height (at least) and relatively stiff spring (which in our case happen to be the Shine 225 lb). Then you can fine tune to infinity with rear spring rate, rebound settings and if that is not enough, then get even a rear bar. But the big start is that front spring....
4. To add some fun to the whole weekend, I put my old Bilsteins (rears only) on another car that is bone stock. It was just to see what would really happen and how would that compare with Winston's pretty successful experiments with Koni rears only.... Well, Bilsteins Sport on the rear only is plain mistake! Not only did not do anything significant to the turn in feel (which Winston reported with even slight rebound settings on Konis) but it made the ride so bumpy and uncomfortable, the guy wanted to take it out after a short drive. I convinced him to drive it for few days, bring it to his favorite roads, try to understand more what do they really give and take. But really, it is plain stupid to go that way, and I kind of knew it, but we had to do it as to confirm the theory. It is just hard, plain hard! I am not going to be far off if I say that my car with Shine front and Stock rears, Koni all around on moderate rebound IS more comfortable on the same tires than plain bone stock car on just Bilsteins on the rear! ....... Once he comes back next weekend, I will give him my Koni rears, so he can have direct comparison (me too) and see more precisely what this will give/take..... But it was nice to get "reminder" of what Bilsteins take away in comfort. Bay Area and Bilsteins can not be in one sentence, at least not in a "comfortable" sentence....
Now, from all the trying to ply with rear springs and rebound (and now knowing little bit more about which spring corresponds to which spring rate), I feel ready to make another few conclusions (but everyone feel free to correct if you think I am wrong). Some of the conclusions may seem idiotic and so obvious, but I feel all this has to be stated anyway. So:
A. Softer rear spring gives more general comfort, but it has to be carefully matched with the right (for comfort) amount of rebound. If rebound is too low or too high, even a softer spring "may" result in jarring or in any other form of uncomfortable ride.
B. Stronger rear spring decreases the ride comfort. Generally the stronger the spring, the lower the comfort. A stronger spring can NOT be used with low rebound! The car is too bouncy, uncontrolled vertical movements all the time. Increasing the rebound, however, does NOT make the ride softer, but changes the frequency and amplitude of the vertical movements. The ride is still firm, becomes even firmer, but the movements are "limited" to shorter travel and higher frequency travel. This "may" result as better comfort, because (my guess is) a human being feels better (when in a boat) going through shorter, closer waves instead of going through longer taller waves. It is very, very thin line and that is precisely where we all are different, so there is no "one for all" rebound setting, not even for the same spring on the same car. So, if you chose a stronger rear spring (to get more handling), you can play with rebound as to modify the frequency of the bounciness, and therefore "custom" tailor it for you, your car, tires, roads, etc, but do not expect that you will gain comfort back with some magic settings. A 200 lb rear spring will NEVER be as comfortable as 120 lb rear spring, no matter where you put your Konis. (all these statements are based on use of Koni Yellow shocks only).
C. Absolutely the same goes for the front spring. A stronger spring (read Shine 225 lb here) can NOT be used with soft rebound (50% is the lower limit in my case) because it results in uncontrolled (feels like) ride and the much higher suspension travel, plus lower frequency. There is sweet spot and again everyone has to find his own, on his own spring, roads, tires, etc. At least this one is easy, because it takes less than a minute to adjust it...
D. The changes in front rebound are LESS dramatic (for comfort) than the changes in rear rebound, so when synchronizing the front and the rear, as for optimal comfort for the given setup, the first to be take car is the rear (the bad thing is, the rear is the time consuming to adjust) and once the rebound is near the right amount, the front rebound could be used to fine tune (easier and faster) the whole picture. 
E. The rebound adjustment of the Koni Yellow (at least those I have in my car) are not so linear. I mean, the effect you achieve with 25% rebound is not half of the effect you achieve with 50% rebound. This particularly gets even more pronounce when going towards very high rebound setting. For example, the front shocks at 50% are (of course) softer than at 75% by certain amount. This same amount feels like twice as much when going from 75% to 100% rebound. At 100% the whole steering wheel feels very hard to move even on small lane changes. Feels like the castor increased significantly (amazing desire to return the steering wheel back to straight after a turn). All this disappears completely when going down to 75%....
F. Finding the optimum (for comfort) settings is possible, there IS a sweet spot, but as soon as (for example) tire compound or even worse, tire size, is changed - the whole process of turn-and-try starts all over again.
G. Softer springs are less sensitive to rebound change and also less sensitive to tire change. You can get away (again, comfort wise) with mismatching here and there, if the spring is relatively soft (read - stock rear spring). Stiffer springs may work much better with specific tire and size than with any other tire, even if those "any other" tires are with softer and/or taller walls. It is as gambling as with he rebound (almost) so, for pure nirvana, more type of tires and size have to be tested with the specific setup. All this if comfort is the main issue. All this if handling has to be maintained at high level as well.
Hope it makes sense, correct me if I am wrong. I tried my best and this is the most I can come out with, given the limited time, resources and knowledge. Planning on testing (spring tester) the H&R and Shine 200 lb rear springs this week. Yes, I got an used 200 lb rear Shine spring here. Then we will have pretty clear picture of where a possible "compromise" in comfort and handling can be had in regards of rear spring rate. Then we will take it from there and see what we can do to test a spring with that desired rate and height. There is long weekend coming and it will be a car weekend again, so if anyone of you has any ideas what else can we try as to get even better picture, let me know, so we have time to discuss it here and plan it......
ciao
P.S: Winston, you are doing an outstanding job with your write-ups about all the different types of applications above. I am very glad to read all this, because in certain cases I am experiencing the described by you theories and it really matches perfectly! You have no idea how much your articles help me in guessing some of my moves better. Thanks a lot!


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I am now almost convinced that the most important part to make our cars to begin perform is the front springs! You make those soft or make them lower - most of the game is lost right there. You may even put bars and shocks and who knows what else, but a proper strong and tall front spring will offset all that and still make more difference.

So, might it be a "Shine-ultra-lite" alternative up front to use Sofsports (firmer than H&R OE Sports), but leaving the factory spacer in place? Seems to me that'd up the spring rate (without sacrificing as much comfort as the 225 Shines), keep stock ride height or very, very close.... From there, folks could play with Sofsport rears, H&R OE Sport rears (as you did), etc....
Thanks again to everyone for sharing their findings with the rest of us. I'll just keep lurking and learning....


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (OstTrefftWest)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OstTrefftWest* »_
So, might it be a "Shine-ultra-lite" alternative up front to use Sofsports (firmer than H&R OE Sports), but leaving the factory spacer in place? Seems to me that'd up the spring rate (without sacrificing as much comfort as the 225 Shines), keep stock ride height or very, very close.... From there, folks could play with Sofsport rears, H&R OE Sport rears (as you did), etc....
Thanks again to everyone for sharing their findings with the rest of us. I'll just keep lurking and learning....

No. What he was saying (correct me if I'm wrong Peter) is that the front springs are critical in the improving performance of the car, and generally not as much of an issue in the comfort department. The rear springs are the killers of comfort.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (3wheelinWolf)*

Correct Scott, that was what I tried to say. If the SofSport front are really 220 lb and lower really 0,5 inch the front, and if the Shine fronts are really 225 lb and do not lower at all (even raise little) then I think going SofSport is going to be noticeable (even if not huge) decrease in "performance", while I also believe the 5 lb difference will not help to gain much comfort. I mean, the slight comfort gain i snot going to offset the more-than-slight performance decrease. You may go 220 and even 200 and why not even 180 lb on the front, if you are absolutely after comfort, BUT HAVE to maintain the Shine ride height. And this is not just an opinion, it is based on the results we have seen from the lifting up the H&R Dune Buggy Coilovers (GTItraveler's tread in this same suspension forum). I am expecting some data from Mike Tyrolkid, hopefully he will find time to measure all the McPherson components on several MkIV in his shop and based on those numbers we are planning on building accurate mathematical model of the front suspension, so we can visualize precisely how much camber is gained/lost at every millimeter of lifting or lowering the front ride height. Then we can build some sort of virtual simulator and see how much spring front rate and at which height would give the best compromise between comfort and camber changes, etc. I will absolutely not be surprised if the Shine front spring comes right around the ideal ride height and stiffness.


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (3wheelinWolf)*

That's a little different than what I understood -- yes, the rears play the biggest role in comfort, but that there was a noticeable comfort difference between the very stiff Shines up front vs. stock....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (OstTrefftWest)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OstTrefftWest* »_That's a little different than what I understood -- yes, the rears play the biggest role in comfort, but that there was a noticeable comfort difference between the very stiff Shines up front vs. stock....

You are correct in understanding it that way! The front also do make "noticeable" (as you said) difference in comfort, but it is not as "dramatic" as the rear. I will try to put it in simple words - if you have stock car (whatever the spring rates are) and up the front spring rate by 40 lb, you may still drive it and live with it on bad roads. If you raise the rear spring rate by 40 lb, you may no longer enjoy driving your car. some people may not be able to live with raising neither, some (like me) could live with raising the fronts only (spring rate rising!) and some do enjoy Full Shine a lot. It is really personal and also it really depends where you live. The very first sentence when we started this tread was:
_"If you live in states like Arizona, Nevada and all the rest with really great roads, just ignore this post and go get your Full Shine Kit as it comes (with Bilstein HD shocks) and start enjoying...."_
I still stand behind what I said then. If I were to live in those states, or almost anywhere out of the Bay Area, I would purchase Full Shine Kit (but with Koni instead of HD) and would drive it till my wheels fall off








By the way, forgot to mention that on Saturday, we were having this tech day wth other folks (engines related) and one of the guys happen to have a Mini Cooper S, which he let me drive for about 20 minutes around town and on the highway. Now, that thing HANDLES! But what I wanted to note here is that the ride quality is quiet poor (on our roads) so, I am ready to make another comparison here: If anyone fo you debates whether to go Full Shine and is not sure about comfort issues on the roads where he/she lives, instead of looking for a Shined car, go test drive a Mini Cooper S! It has to be with Sport Package and 17" wheels (205 tires) because the 15" sport package is more comfortable. So, drive that thing and see whether you can stand it, because my butt says that it feels more or less (comfort wise) like Full Shine on Jetta with 16" wheels and performance tires.


----------



## PASSAT2001.5 (Apr 8, 2001)

believe it or not, I run the same set up on my passat. Front NS Bilstein/Rear Koni Sports. I did experience this while back with my 18" wheels and had it with stiffer rear bilsteins. 
Anyway, I first started with rear koni's at 3/8th turn from softest, but overtime it got broken in and got softer. over a year later now, i've got the rear set at 5/8th turn from the softest and it matches the front Bilstein sports perfectly without any added harshness or bounce.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (PASSAT2001.5)*

I absolutely believe you







Bilsteins HD are simply wrong for the rear on our cars and absolutely great for the front. For a daily drive thought, front Koni gives slight comfort gain over the Bisltein, and on top of that the rebound could be used to achieve better ride quality on certain surfaces........ 
You are the the second person who said the 3/8 rear turn is kind of sweet spot for comfort, so last night I put my rears on 3/8 and then on 4/8 and there is slight difference, with 3/8 being better on the cement joints. But I also felt the 4/8 (half turn) gave better feel in the twisties. It is not huge gain, but makes me feel much better. I think for relatively soft spring (stock rear in my case) the 3/8 to 5/8 range is turning out to be "the spot". Too bad it is so time consuming to tweak those rears, so I really do not have the enthusiasm to spend the whole week under the car as to try five different settings in between those 3/8 and 4/8....... Man, I wish these Konis were adjustable from the outside like the fonts......


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (wickGLIguy)*

Great thread for the info though. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Geordie (Jun 22, 2001)

*Re: Few more things about the 150 lb rear springs .... (ScooterMac01)*

Thanks for the info guys, very informative and changed my plans for my Passat. In the end the suspension is cheap compared to the wheels anyway.


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I have just started reading this post(still on p1) and am reading the quote. 
And in the H&R cupkit install sheet, it does mention this very fact, and the install shop talked with me about before I brought it up. My MK III rides great on my cupkit. 
BTW, so far as I have read, great thread, and awesome job on the analytical end with great constructive info, thanks to all the contributors!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Scott
P.S. Sorry if I am chiming in late here!

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ *
AND THEN WHY SPRINGS MANUFACTURER DO NOT SAY A JACK ABOUT THIS TOO? WHERE IS THE LINE IN THE INSTRUCTIONS WHEN YOU GET H&R SPRINGS, SHINE SPRINGS, NEUSPEED SPRINGS AND YOU NAME IT - THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD BUY SHORTER BUMP STOPS ON YOUR SHOCKS, OR YOU SHOULD CUT THEM, OTHERWISE YOU WILL RIDE ON YOUR BUMP STOPS? WHERE ARE THOSE LINES THAT SAY SO?????
WHERE ARE YOU MANUFACTURERS? WHERE ARE YOUR INSTRUCTIONS?? SELLING STUFF THAT SAYS "SPORT" SO IT IS DESIGNED TO GO WIT LOWER SPRING....... YEAH, RIGHT, AND SEATING ON THE STOCK BUMP STOPS, SO EVERYTHING GOES SOUTH!* 
Anyone of you guys here, seen such instructions that say if you go lower than one inch...actually if you go lower even with less, with my product, then you have to cut the bump stops, or use different shorter ones? 
Sorry for the vent and everything, but I find it absolutely ridiculous that no one said officially, on piece of paper, in instructions with the products, anything about this.


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (ScooterMac01)*

Better late then never. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Pyce, do we have spring rates for cup kits? I wonder what their compression/rebound numbers are on the dampers.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (ScooterMac01)*

Scooter, if you read the next few pages, you would realize that I got those H&R more than 2 years ago and at that specific time there was NOTHING that came in the box! Lately I purchased H&R OE, that came in the same size and type of box, same packaging and this time there were flashy orange instructions with all models cars included that required bumpstops cut...... Things much have changed over time, or perhaps I was one unlucky H&R customer, who never got those instructions...


----------



## ScooterMac01 (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I got the Hunter Orange sheet too, I am so far behind on this thread...still on 2003 year workin my way forward...Todays adventure is getting a 4 wheel alignment on my GLX and seeing if I can get the new TT 5 spoke rims w/205/17/40's to quit rubbing...







...this rubbing is with rolled fenders. Me thinks offset and Cupkit are working in collusion to irritate me...
Going to grab lunch, come back and finish the thread while listening to the Masters.
Cheers!


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (ScooterMac01)*

With all this talk about mix-and-match springs, it makes me wonder if it's possible at a reasonable price to order just front or rear springs from aftermarket companies?
It'd seem awfully silly for me to spend $300 on two sets of springs just to leave half of them on the shelf -- now that I'd have the benefit of all these experiments in choosing. Specifically, I'd be leaning towards Shine/Sofsport fronts, H&R OE Sports rear, and my 28mm Autotech RSB set to "soft" as a nice ride/handling compromise (still waffling about which shocks)....


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (OstTrefftWest)*

I would be surprised if Shine didn't let you order fronts independantly from the back, or vice-versa. The H&Rs you may have better luck sourcing in the classifieds. I doubt an H&R reseller is going to go to the trouble to open a box, remove the front springs, and hope someone else will just need the fronts. In terms of shocks, I don't think you could lose going with the Koni adjustables. I like how precise the Bilsteins feel/respond, but the konis are no joke either. I'd get the Konis for the rear, and Bilsetins for the front if you are dead set to go the route of comfort. Otherwise I'd do the Bilsteins all around, since they tend to be sourced cheaper than the Konis. At least in my experience...


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (3wheelinWolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3wheelinWolf* »_....I'd get the Konis for the rear, and Bilsetins for the front if you are dead set to go the route of comfort..... 

Wolfie,
I'm sure Peter will jump in and clarify, but I think he tried Bilstein in front and Koni in the back, and found an annoying, jiggling pitch (he described it as the rears feeling somehow out of sync with the fronts). Certainly some people have had success with the mixed Bilstein/Koni setup, but Peter and I have been finding that when the damper characteristics are different front to rear, it's hard to tune out that "out of sync" feeling. It only shows up on some surfaces, so maybe for many people it's not a problem, but on some roads it can be very annoying, ride comfort-wise.
Anyway, Peter will clarify this point -- just wanted to toss it out. Happy Easter!
- Ceilidh


----------



## heysuperman (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3wheelinWolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3wheelinWolf* »_
Edit: Forgot to mention that they are claimed to be 10-15% stiffer than stock. "They are like the stock sport suspension." <---Isn't that 7% stiffer than stock?










i have a set of H&R OE sports and they're definitely stiffer than the stock "sport" suspension


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (pyce)*

Hi Everyone,
Back for a short bit -- Here are some comments on (Peter) Pyce's last post:

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
1. Current setup for the last week or so was 225 lb front, H&R OE rear, Koni 75%F and 33%R. That setup is good on 16" and on 15". Great ride quality (for me). On Saturday increased the rebound to where it was before with the 150 lb rear, so it went to 50% rear rebound. It made the ride slightly firmer, but the turn in improved noticeable again! So, now we have tried 4 different springs on the rear and on all 4 when the rebound goes near the 50% range, there is really noticeable improvement in turn in and the overall handling feel jumps up significantly. 

Yes, I found the same thing -- even 1/8 turn (45 degrees, or ~6%) damper changes at the rear make a perceptible difference in the turn-in, and 1/4 turn (~12%) changes are quite noticeable. It seems like there's a clear tradeoff between handling (esp. turn in & low speed cornering) and ride firmness, which one can play with using rear rebound settings.

_Quote »_

2. Finally had a chance to drive that Wagon I was mentioning before about. Stock springs all around, Koni Yellow all around, and a Neuspeed 25 rear bar. Actually, he has the front spring from heavier VR6 GLI sport package, so it is even strongest than the stock 2.0/TDI front spring. If you remember, we were even planning to remove the bar as to bring the setup closer to mine (stock bars only), but we did not go that far, because there was really no need to remove the bar, and here is why: That setup is so soft, so comfortable and leans in the curves so much, that we figured out if we remove the rear bar it would be even worse and there was really no point as even with the bar I made my idea of what such setup is (relatively). 

Thanks for checking this setup, Peter! Two things come to mind:
1) If your friend ever wants to try the experiments again, it might still be interesting to disconnect the rear bar -- even if the handling is pretty soft with it now, it'd be nice to know how much worse it is without the bar. That is, in the final guide, we'd like to be able to tell people how much they would gain from a light rear bar as a first mod, as compared with what they'd get with a simple front spring swap. Since you have so much experience with a stiff front spring / stock rear setup, you could really tell us just how much bang-for-the-buck one can get with a rear bar (vs. with a front spring). So please do try the experiment, should the opportunity ever arise again -- it would benefit a lot of people!
2) The other thing is that I'm wondering: has anyone here driven a Jetta wagon back to back with a stock GTI? I have a feeling that the wagon will probably be softer handling than a base Golf or Jetta, and I know from my own test drives that the stock GTI is a fair ways sharper handling than the base Golf.
Or to put this point in a wider context: my own experience has been that Konis on a stock GTI chassis is a pretty nice setup -- slow compared to a Shine, of course, but still quite fun. But Peter, your findings are suggesting either that (A) I (Ceilidh) am probably far more tolerant of roll and soft handling than is almost anyone else on this forum; or else (B) maybe the Konis + stock springs might only be a viable ticket on the GTI or Jetta Sport suspension. Most likely it's a combination of A & B (I really don't mind roll at all, so long as a suspension still responds to what I'm doing -- but I'd suspect that my GTI starts out a lot sharper than the Jetta wagon).


_Quote »_
...... I am now almost convinced that the most important part to make our cars to begin perform is the front springs! You make those soft or make them lower - most of the game is lost right there. You may even put bars and shocks and who knows what else, but a proper strong and tall front spring will offset all that and still make more difference. I know it is a strong statement, but this is my feel as per today....


Peter, if and when you become sure about this statement, it will be a very major one, with profound implications for everyone on this thread. 
I'm not sure if you remember back to some of my earliest communications with you, but somewhere back there I mentioned that my experience is with RWD vintage race cars, and on those cars the very first thing you do is stiffen the front springs by a lot (typically by about 50%) while leaving the rear rate alone -- in fact, sometimes you even soften the rear by about 5-7%. (You also often drop the rear end of those cars more than you do the front, to wind up with a sort of reverse rake.) The idea here is that a stock suspension is usually set up with quite soft front springs, for reasons of ride comfort (less impact harshness, and better control of pitch when using soft stock dampers) -- these soft springs have trouble controlling roll & pitch, and stiffening them up immediately makes the platform handle and steer much better.
Because FWD and RWD differ in so many fundamental respects, I had just assumed that this Stiffen-the-front-first approach (which is a no-brainer with the cars I'm used to) must not apply to the Golf/Jetta IV, but the setup you're almost ready to certify is amazingly close to the standard vintage racing 1st mod: 50% stiffer front springs (225 lb/in Shine fronts, vs. ??150lb/in?? stock fronts), and rear springs either at stock rate, or perhaps 7% stiffer than stock. Plus you're using the reverse rake (nose-up, tail-down). Elements of this setup are still different from RWD vintage racing practice (e.g., we stiffen the front bar a bit, and as mentioned above we'll sometimes soften the rear), which is reassuring, but it's striking how similar the front spring recommendation is.

_Quote »_
Now, regarding comfort, the stock setup with Koni (his) is much more comfortable than even the mildest I ever had. That thing is plain comfy and it is such a pleasure to drive it on any road. Ceilidh, this precise comparison (comfort) makes me think that you may actually not like the front Shine with whatever rear spring....... Yes, we found that the rear is more important for comfort, but now I found exactly how important is the front as well, and it is not little importance. Softening the rear made the big jump back into comfort territory, but the front still keeps you back in the relatively "uncomfortable" area. I would shoot in the dark and say the ratio (responsibility for perceived comfort) could be from 60-40 to 70-30. I mean, my butt in my situation says the rear is responsible for about 60 to 70% of the general comfort. The front still plays important role, but it is not fifty-fifty. Therefore, Ceilidh, I am really not sure you would enjoy what I am living with here daily...... I think your comfort requirement is higher than mine and not by little....... 


This one really surprises me.
As mentioned above, I've driven a bit in RWD cars where the front springs have been stiffened 50%, and I've never found the ride harsh (so long as I wasn't doing anything stupid like using "performance" bushings, antiroll bar mounts, subframe mounts, etc.). Considerably firmer yes, but not harsh -- and often the increased firmness seemed a little more comfortable at highway speeds...
As near as I can tell, when you stiffen the fronts up to 225 lb/in, you're only bringing the front ride rate (which controls comfort) up to about the level the rear is already sitting. Hmmm....better check that right now with a back-of-the-envelope:
ROUGH CALCULATION:
Assume 3000lb car, with 63/47 F/R weight distribution: that's 1890lbs front/ 1110lbs rear.
Assume 40 lbs unsprung weight per wheel at rear, 50 lbs/ wheel front (just wild guesses; it's not going to make too much of a difference). That leaves sprung weights of 1790 lbs front / 1030 lbs rear.
Ride rate is proportional to SQRT[wheel rate/mass]
Assume 100% mechanical advantage at front (I know it's slightly less, but we're being rough here), and 90% mechanical advantage at rear trailing arm.
Temporarily forget that lbs is a unit of force and not mass (convert to slugs or kg if you want to be finicky!). (i.e., the units are going to be screwed up, but we don't care for this comparison...)
wheel rate/mass at front = 225 lb/in / 895 lbs = 0.251
stock wheel rate/mass at rear = (150 lb/in * (90%**2)) / 515 lbs = 0.236
H&R wheel rate/mass at rear = (160 lb/in * (90%**2)) / 515 lbs = 0.252
Bottom line, the front and rear will be about the same firmness when you use a Shine front spring and an H&R/SofSport rear, and the Shine front is only marginally stiffer than the stock rear. So I don't see why the ride quality should be so much worse....
As an important side note here: your reports of the stock rear feeling a little "too soft for Shine front" makes sense in the context of ride rates: with Shine Front / H&R Rear, your front and rear ride rates are about equal. This configuration tends to give a little more pitch (which is less noticeable with stiff damping -- which you have), but the rates fore & aft feel pretty balanced. I've run this configuration on RWD cars, and it feels pretty nice.
Also as a side note, if the above F/R weight distribution & unsprung weights, etc. bear any relation to reality







, a good front spring to go with the stock rears might be a Shine-height 210lb/in spring... 
Anyway, I'm perplexed about the ride comfort with the Shine front: just to clarify, is it actually harsher (e.g., impact "BANGS!", which are the objectionable part of these suspensions), or is it just firmer? I can live with firmer; it's the bangs that cause me to dial down the Koni settings.

_Quote »_
4. To add some fun to the whole weekend, I put my old Bilsteins (rears only) on another car that is bone stock. It was just to see what would really happen and how would that compare with Ceilidh's pretty successful experiments with Koni rears only.... Well, Bilsteins Sport on the rear only is plain mistake! Not only did not do anything significant to the turn in feel (which Ceilidh reported with even slight rebound settings on Konis) but it made the ride so bumpy and uncomfortable, the guy wanted to take it out after a short drive. ........ my car with Shine front and Stock rears, Koni all around on moderate rebound IS more comfortable on the same tires than plain bone stock car on just Bilsteins on the rear! .......


A very important finding, which you've now confirmed on two separate cars. The above quote should be required reading for people contemplating shocks (with the caveat that on roads without high speed sharp impacts, Bilsteins can be fine).
This finding of yours is particularly important because it is NOT a general statement that applies to all cars, but which seems to be specific to the Golf/Jetta IV chassis. Bilsteins are normally fantastic shocks, and my friends and I have put them on a variety of cars without any comfort issues at all. But on the rear of a Golf/Jetta IV on a bumpy highway, your findings imply they don't work.
To anyone reading along: the above might tempt you into thinking "Ah Ha! I'll just out Koni's on the rear for comfort, and Bilsteins on the front of the nth fraction of best handling...". If you're contemplating that, please remember that Peter tried Bilstein Front / Koni Rear for a long time, and found big ride improvements when he switched to Konis all-around -- the problem with front Bilsteins was not impact harshness, but an inability to match front & rear damping characteristics when used with rear Konis, leading to a jiggling pitch. (I had the same problem with stock fronts / Koni rears, suggesting that this jiggling pitch might be a generic problem when you mix shock absorber brands on a single car.) 

_Quote »_
A. Softer rear spring gives more general comfort, but it has to be carefully matched with the right (for comfort) amount of rebound. If rebound is too low or too high, even a softer spring "may" result in jarring or in any other form of uncomfortable ride.


Agreed!

_Quote »_
B. Stronger rear spring decreases the ride comfort. Generally the stronger the spring, the lower the comfort. A stronger spring can NOT be used with low rebound! The car is too bouncy, uncontrolled vertical movements all the time. Increasing the rebound, however, does NOT make the ride softer, but changes the frequency and amplitude of the vertical movements. The ride is still firm, becomes even firmer, but the movements are "limited" to shorter travel and higher frequency travel. This "may" result as better comfort......A 200 lb rear spring will NEVER be as comfortable as 120 lb rear spring, no matter where you put your Konis. (all these statements are based on use of Koni Yellow shocks only).


Again, consistent with my own experiences on other cars.

_Quote »_
C. Absolutely the same goes for the front spring. A stronger spring (read Shine 225 lb here) can NOT be used with soft rebound (50% is the lower limit in my case) because it results in uncontrolled (feels like) ride and the much higher suspension travel, plus lower frequency. There is sweet spot and again everyone has to find his own, on his own spring, roads, tires, etc. At least this one is easy, because it takes less than a minute to adjust it...


ditto!

_Quote »_
D. The changes in front rebound are LESS dramatic (for comfort) than the changes in rear rebound, so when synchronizing the front and the rear, as for optimal comfort for the given setup, the first to be take car is the rear (the bad thing is, the rear is the time consuming to adjust) and once the rebound is near the right amount, the front rebound could be used to fine tune (easier and faster) the whole picture. 


The above statement might be dependent on front spring rate: I found that on my car (with stock springs front and rear), the front rebound adjustment is more - not less - sensitive than the rear. On my car, a 1/8 turn the wrong way will noticeably harshen the front end.
Perhaps we can modify your statement to be: "the softer the spring, the more sensitive it is (for ride comfort) to rebound setting. On a stock car, the front is more sensitive; on a Shine Front/ H&R or Stock rear, the rear is more sensitive...."
In any case, I used more or less the same tuning technique, even though the rear adjustments were less sensitive then the front:
a) set the rear at some plausible setting
b) adjust the front so that the front is the most comfortable
c) adjust the front so that it's as uncomfortable as the rear (i.e., if the rear bounces, get the front to bounce in the same way; if the rear is jolting on sharp bumps, get the front to jolt as well....)
d) if the front setting for (b) is stiffer than for (c), try a stiffer rear setting, and repeat b-d; if the front setting for (b) is softer than for (c), loosen the rear and repeat b-d.

_Quote »_
E. The rebound adjustment of the Koni Yellow (at least those I have in my car) are not so linear. I mean, the effect you achieve with 25% rebound is not half of the effect you achieve with 50% rebound. This particularly gets even more pronounce when going towards very high rebound setting.....At 100% the whole steering wheel feels very hard to move even on small lane changes. Feels like the castor increased significantly (amazing desire to return the steering wheel back to straight after a turn). All this disappears completely when going down to 75%....


I did not experience this effect on my stock GTI at full stiff front rebound -- it must be somehow dependent on front spring rate.

_Quote »_
Hope it makes sense, correct me if I am wrong. I tried my best and this is the most I can come out with, given the limited time, resources and knowledge. ......
ciao


Your writeup is superb, Peter -- thank you very much for the great experiments, and please keep the information flowing!!








- Ceilidh (W)


_Modified by Ceilidh at 8:49 PM 4-11-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Some more findings ..... (Ceilidh)*

Good to hear from you, Winst!







You are back with another typical of yours (long and detailed!) http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I do not have a lot of time right now, so we will leave the deeper discussion for the week, but wanted quickly to try to answer what seems the be the biggest perplexity in your last post..... I said you may not like the comfort with Shine (after I tried stock front Jetta) and you were very surprised ot hear this...... I think the main reason is that (as I said in one of those A, B, C, etc statements) the front (strong Shine 225 in this case) can not be driven with low rebound, and in fact I just tried lower than 50% only once and it was not a good idea. Since that day one or two we put the front Koni, the rebound in the front had always been above 50% (the best mine was the 75%) and that those precise settings, the front is firm, telegraphs a lot more through the steering wheel and somehow results in lower comfort (on the cement highways, mind you!) At the same time, I read that your front setting are below 50% and on top of the on a softer spring, so, therefore my conclusion that you may not like the front Shine. But it was a guess, and I may be wrong. Also, now that I was reading the other topic of yours (Boston vs. SF) I also realize that my roads are different type of crap compare to yours, so if we are looking for the "general GT" setup, we may not be able to define it "one for all" as we wish. It may end up that mine is really comfy on the cement joints (which I live on almost 95% of the time) but may result not so comfortable on the "different type of bad road conditions" on your end there.......... But tell you what, by now we spent so much time and effort to get here, and we can not afford to make mistakes or simply let small things to lead us to the wrong way. At this point we have to "close the loop" (as you said) on both sides as to make sure all our tests and theories coincide. I drove a car with close to your setup, even if the car was slightly different and I see that we have some sort of different feels about the direct comparison between mine and yours. At this point, I believe the only sure way to actually fully understand each other and fully synchronize the results (and the following later paths) is if you actually install a set of front Shine springs on your car! Then we will really close the whole thing and you will have the only accurate way to realize what I have been saying, and I will have also the the best way to find out whether my thoughts had been day-dreaming or not......... So, would you be willing to install front Shine 225? I will ship you my front springs as soon as you decide. Actually, this would work even better because this way we can test them on a bench and also, we will be sure that you are driving on the exact same spring rate!...... Say "yes" please


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (7 - roll centers & weight transfer)*

7. Roll Centers and Weight Transfer
Hello Everyone!
Sorry to be away so long -- work has been pretty busy.







We're going to eventually get to the GT suspension, but there are still a few odds & ends to clean up. For this installment, you can decide whether you'll want to read it by first seeing how you do on a little quickie quiz:
Answer True or False:
1. Reducing the amount of body roll while cornering will improve performance by reducing the lateral weight transfer on the tires.
2. When a car rolls, it compresses the springs on the outside tires, which overloads the tires and reduces their effective traction. A car that rolls less will compress the outside springs less, which will load the tires less, which gives them better traction.
3. If you lower a car, it will roll less.
4. If you drop the front roll center and keep everything else the same, the car will understeer more.
5. Springs and antiroll bars are the primary factors that determine how lateral weight transfer is distributed fore & aft (which, together with camber effects, determines whether the car understeers or oversteers).
Ok, did you take the quiz? Honestly? With no peeking? Ok, then here are the answers:
(drum roll please....)......If you answered anything other than "False" for all of the questions, and if you care about suspension theory, you might want to read parts of this installment.









1 & 2 -- Why Reducing Roll Does Not Affect Weight Transfer
Ok, first thing is to get lateral weight transfer squared away: when a car goes around a corner, weight is transferred from the inside tires to the outside tires, and the amount of weight transferred is equal to:
(lateral g-force) * (car mass) * (CG height) / (track width)
Note that spring rate and antiroll bar rate have nothing to do with it. When a car goes around a corner, the weight transfer will occur regardless of whether its suspension is pillowy soft or absolutely locked solid. Making the springs stiffer will not reduce the weight transfer, and thus stiffer springs will not directly make the car perform better (if there's a performance benefit, it's an indirect gain from less tire camber, better control of unsprung weight, or less body movement over bumps, etc., as discussed in earlier installments).
Similarly, roll doesn't enter into the equation either (to be really accurate, it actually does to a very small extent, in that the CG shifts sideways when the car rolls -- but whilst this is a concern for big SUVs, buses, etc with a lot of roll and a very high CG relative to track width, for our cars it's small enough to basically ignore). Roll can do a lot of horrible things for handling (via tire cambers, body transients, etc.), but weight transfer is not the main issue. Hence any spring vendor that tells you that "stiff performance springs reduce weight transfer by reducing body roll" is either (A) clueless or (B) dishonest; either way you'll not want to trust him.
(Aside: So what does affect weight transfer? Track, and CG height. Here, for once, the advertising arguments do have a physical basis: if you drop the CG, you'll reduce the total lateral weight transfer, and if everything else stays the same, your handling will improve. Similarly, if you widen the track, you'll get less transfer, and if everything else stays the same, your cornering power will improve. That's why true race cars are built with the CG as low as possible and with the track width usually at the limits of regulation.
The hitch of course is the phrase "if everything else stays the same": Everything else never does stay the same. Dropping the CG by installing lowering springs causes a host of problems (discussed in this thread and more completely in the forum stickies). Widening the track by installing huge wheel spacers will destroy your bearings and screw up your steering geometry, which is also slow. All in all, "improving" your car by reducing weight transfer is not a good way to begin.)

3. Why Lowering Doesn't Necessarily Mean Less Roll
Here's another issue that has been amply discussed elsewhere, but on the off-chance there are novices who have been reading about roll centers, but don't really know what they are, here's a (very) abbreviated explanation:
a) Imagine a car with solid axles (meaning, there's literally a big beam running at hub-height from left wheel to right wheel, straight across each end of the car). Now imagine that you've drilled a horizontal hole straight through the midpoint of each axle, and that you've bolted the body of the car to the axles using those holes. If I've painted the picture correctly, you have a "suspension" where the wheels on each axle can't go up & down together, but they can pivot: if the left wheel goes up, the right wheel goes down, and vice versa. Set this strangely designed car on a level ground, steer it around a corner, and it will roll -- and the axis about which the car rolls will be the centrepoint of each axle (because that's where the body is bolted to the axles). In this situation, the axle centrepoint -- where the body is bolted to the axle -- is the "roll center".
b) In situation "a", the roll center is a physical thing -- you can see it and touch it, and it's really easy to see how the car rolls around it. There are some cars (well, there used to be...) that have such a physical roll center (chiefly some DeDion suspensions from WWII days), but unfortunately (for visualization purposes) that's not the norm. Nowadays we have suspensions where the roll center is not a physical pivot point, but a "virtual" point that moves around as the car shifts about on its suspension. But although the roll center is typically a virtual object, it controls the car's motions exactly the way that a physical pivot does. So if you have trouble imagining what the roll center does to a car, just imagine a solid, physical pivot sitting where the roll center is said to lie....
c) Now let's do some physics (shudder): suppose the car body in "a" has a center of gravity that lies 18" above the ground. How do we get it so that this car does not roll at all when it goes around corners? That's easy: we give it 36" wheels (overall diameter, wheel & tire together). In that situation, the physical roll center is sitting at 18" (axle height), which means the center of gravity (CG) is sitting directly on the roll axis (sorry -- the "roll axis" is the line connecting the two roll centers -- here it's a horizontal line running fore & aft 18" above the ground). Since the CG is sitting on the roll axis, there's no tendency to roll. So the car corners flat -- even though we don't have any springs or antiroll bars.
d) What happens if we make the wheels, say, 48" in diameter, so that the CG of the car body (at 18") is lower than the roll axis (at 24")? That's interesting. Now the body of the car is basically hanging down from the roll centers (from the physical pivots, in this example), and it'll actually bank into turns, the same way a bucket will "bank" into turns if you carry it by the handle.
e) Conversely, what happens if we drop the roll center way down, all the way to the ground? The car rolls, a lot, as now the CG is above the roll center.
f) In practice, automotive roll centers always like below the CG (situation "e"). Given that, a car's tendency to roll depends upon how far the CG is above the roll center. The greater that distance, the more the car wants to roll.
g) Now, if you go to the "Lowering" sticky at the top of the forum, you'll see that if you lower a McPherson strut suspension, the roll center drops faster than the CG -- which means that the distance between CG and roll center grows, which means that you have more tendency to roll This phenomenon is really well-discussed elsewhere, so we'll say no more about it.
h) What we will mention in passing, however, is what happens at the back of the Golf/Jetta IV: for everything other than the R32, we have a twist beam rear axle, and the roll center in such a setup lies right in the middle of the twist beam. If you go look at this axle on your car, you'll see that it doesn't behave like the McPherson front: if you lower the rear of the car, the CG drops (because you're lowering the car), but the twist beam doesn't drop quite as much (because of the way the trailing arm is pivoted: the wheel end doesn't drop at all, while the pivot end drops with the body....and the twist beam is in between). Hence when you drop the rear end of these cars, you simultaneously lower the CG while slightly reducing the tendency to roll. Thus you're free to lower the rear end of the car pretty much all you want -- theoretical roadholding will improve because of the (modest) reduction in roll and (modestly) lowered CG.
And so, if you've ever wondered why the Shine setup looks so, um, interesting, that's why: Shine keeps the front high, for all the roll center and camber gain issues discussed in the previous installments, while dropping the rear for less weight transfer and less roll.
(continued next post)


_Modified by Ceilidh at 7:39 PM 4-16-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (7 (cont) - Roll Centers)*

(continued from above)
4 and 5) Roll Centers and Understeer / Oversteer
First off, let's be hastily clear: if you blithely lower the front of you Golf/Jetta IV, it will understeer more -- that's because you'll drop the roll center faster than the CG falls, the car will roll more, and the front tires will go more into adverse camber. But the question in #4 was subtly different: it was asking what is the effect of roll center height on understeer/ oversteer?
If we had a way to drop the front roll center without changing any other parameter: the car somehow rolls exactly the same as before, the spring rates are the same, the CG lies at the same point, etc., then the car will understeer less than before. For the front of the car, this kind of a moot point -- we have no way of dropping the roll center without screwing up the roll, and there are many good reasons in any case for keeping the roll center where it is -- but it's of interest for the rear, and we'll get to it via our solid-axle thought example:
a) Remember our solid-axle car with the body physically bolted to the axles? Think back to the case where the wheels are 36" in diameter and the CG is at 18" -- this is the car where the CG lies on the roll axis, and the car won't roll at all in a turn, even if it has no springs.
b) Will there be lateral weight transfer when this car goes around a corner? Absolutely -- like we said before, there's going to be weight transfer regardless of whether the car rolls.
c) Ok, next question: if this car has no springs, but there's weight transfer....what exactly is causing the weight transfer to occur? We usually think of the car rolling, and compressing the outside spring, and thus putting more weight on the outside wheel, but here there's not spring -- and yet there's weight transfer. So what gives?
d) The answer is that the roll centers themselves cause a lot of the weight transfer to occur on a car.
e) If the roll centers are up at the CG height, all the weight transfer (more exactly, all the transfer for the sprung mass) goes through the roll centers, and none of it goes through the springs. If the roll centers are on the ground, then all of it goes through the springs, and none of it goes through the roll centers. If the roll centers are halfway between the ground and the CG height, then half of the weight transfer goes through the roll centers, and half of it goes through the springs. And so on. The higher the roll center, the more weight transfer that goes through it.
f) Hence, if you keep springing constant, and play with roll center heights, you can change the fore & aft distribution of weight transfer. Start with a neutral car with 50/50 weight distribution, uniformly high roll centers, equal springs front & rear, etc. Drop the roll center in the front and raise the roll center at the rear, and more weight is transferred at the back, so the car oversteers. Raise the front roll center while dropping the rear, and you get more front transfer, and hence you get understeer.
f) The reason most of you have probably never read about this phenomenon is that on most performance cars, it's not an issue. There are many good reasons to design a suspension such that the roll center is just above the ground. If you do this, not a whole lot of weight transfer goes through the roll centers, and the weight that does is pretty balanced (because both front and rear centers are uniformly low). Thus if you spend your time reading about performance car suspensions (and who wants to read about non-performance car suspensions?), you won't hear much about roll-center effects on lateral weight transfer.
g) Unfortunately, however, the Golf/Jetta IV has a twist beam rear suspension, about which Milliken & Milliken are only able to say (p. 661): "This family of rear suspensions is....used on front wheel drive cars. The only time one would be on a racing car is in a showroom stock-type class."
For this suspension, the roll center (up in the twist beam) is unusually high. On my GTI I've measured it at 8.5"; on a brand-new Golf it'd be at around 9.5". This height is not quite so extreme as what you'd find on a vintage British race car (on my MGB it was about 12"), but it's still high enough to cause a lot of weight transfer that has nothing to do with the springs. On my MGB (for which we knew enough to do a reasonable analysis), over half the weight transfer at the rear was due to the roll center height, and less than half was controlled by the springs. For the GTI (for which nobody seems to have reliable information on even basic things such as stock spring rates), I would guess that maybe a third of the weight transfer if roll-center-controlled.
What does this mean? We'll use this tidbit in later discussions, but for now it's just another reason why if we want to appreciably improve the Golf/Jetta IV suspension (for handling), we should be focusing on the front. Simply put, there's a lot of lateral weight transfer already occurring at the back of a Golf/Jetta IV: in addition to the springs, the twist-beam, and the stock antiroll bar inside the twist-beam, we also have a really high roll center that's throwing an awful lot of weight onto the outside wheel -- and with all that, the car still understeers a ton under hard cornering. When you read a tuning guide urging a stiffer rear to curb understeer, the guide is generally assuming you're starting with only a moderate amount of rear weight transfer in stock form, in which case a small change can have a big effect; with our cars, however, we start with a lot, and there's only so much stiffening we can do back there before we start getting into pathological cases (note: we're not saying that stiff rear bars aren't good -- but if you want to use a big rear bar, you ought to stiffen things at the front first).
Or to put it a different way: apparently this thread really got going when Peter Pyce went to stiff fronts and a soft rear, and many people told him he was crazy, that he would understeer off the road, that there was no way this suspension could work, etc. These people assumed (quite reasonably, given everything that's written out there) that such a setup would cause much more weight transfer in the front than in the rear, which would cause massive understeer. But in fact, there's a heck of a lot of weight transfer occurring at the rear for purely geometric reasons, and it's possible that in stock form there's already more transfer at the rear than at the front (no, I haven't done an analysis, so I'm not sure -- it's not an uncommon situation, however, for passenger cars with a high rear roll center and an overall abundance of stock roll); if so, the only thing keeping the stock car from oversteering off the road is the extreme amount of tire leaning that takes place at the front while cornering. By putting on stiff front springs, Peter has probably brought the F/R lateral weight transfer distribution closer to a more traditional balance (with the front maybe 10% more than the rear), while keeping the front tires more upright through reduced roll.
Anyway, all the above is just a conjecture until we can build a spreadsheet model (if ever). Next installment will finally get into GT suspensions, now that we have all the conceptual tools. See you all next week!
- Ceilidh



_Modified by Ceilidh at 7:42 PM 4-16-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (8 - Intro to GT Setups)*

8) GT Suspensions
Ok, at last we turn to GT suspensions.









GT Reminder
First, a quick review (for more detail, look back in the "Who We Are" post): A GT suspension is one that allows for fast, effortless, reasonably-comfortable travel on varying and difficult roads. Unlike the Agility-is-Everything Autocross suspension, and also unlike the We're-Always-at-the-Limits road race suspension, the GT setup has to have:
1) excellent roadholding (good mechanical grip) on a variety of road surfaces
2) forgiveness for unexpected events
3) handling that is consistent under changing road, weather, and load conditions
4) responsiveness to good throttle/brake/steering technique
5) reasonable ride comfort
Picking an appropriate tradeoff between these 5 characteristics is tricky, and you cannot optimize for all of them at once. A race suspension will lose out on #2 and #5 (and often #3); autocross suspensions often lack #1,2,3,5; and a poorly designed aftermarket kit (particularly one directed toward the Darters) is capable of losing all 5 simultaneously.

Stock Reminder
As discussed earlier, the stock suspension is not that bad at all, as it possesses abundant amounts of #2,3,4,5. It does so by artificially (via adverse camber on the front tires) introducing noticeable understeer at even low speeds; by increasing the amount of understeer with cornering speed in an extremely progressive and predictable fashion; and by hitting extremely unpleasant amounts of understeer long before the front tires actually run out of grip. As a result, the stock car feels "natural": drive too fast, and the front washes out; correct for the understeer by turning the wheel harder, and the car responds to the steering; take your foot off the gas to slow down, and whilst the front end will tuck in, a normal driver can readily avert a spin; apply classical corner-entry and exit techniques, and the car will corner much faster than normal street traffic.
Where the stock suspension loses out big time is in Extreme Agility (which is not even on the list of GT priorities, but which is perhaps #1 for an autocrosser), and -- more importantly here -- in #1: Roadholding. Because the stock understeer sets in so early and becomes so pronounced at moderate speeds, the usable level of grip is far below what some drivers would like (I say "usable" because the absolute level of grip (as indicated by skidpad g-forces) is only about 10-15% lower than those of purer performance cars; it's just that the understeer becomes (by design) so unpleasant at even moderate speeds that most people get nowhere the absolute limits).
The challenge with a GT setup is therefore to improve #1 (Roadholding) without losing out everywhere else. In general, it's not hard to increase #4 (Handling Responsiveness) at the same time as #1, so the tradeoff is in improving #1,4 without losing too much of #2,3,5.

STAGE 1: Install Koni Shocks on all 4 Corners
The above paragraph (about the tradeoffs between goals #1-5) is a general statement that applies to almost all passenger cars. With the Golf/Jetta IV, there is an additional challenge: the rear suspension design (the classic twist-beam) has, among several other failings, an inherently poor ability to absorb sharp impacts (meaning that when you hit a sharp-edged pothole, expansion strip, or ridge, the suspension transmits a "BANG!" into the cabin). This failing (which is one reason why the Golf/Jetta V is going to a multilink rear, and why none of the FWD cars that are known to outhandle the Golf IV -- e.g., Focus, Mini -- use a twist beam) makes it very hard to stiffen the rear without quickly losing ride comfort.
On the damping side, the need to keep the rear end soft means that the stock rear shocks are fairly soft on high-piston-velocity damping (high piston-velocity controls bumps; low piston-velocity controls pitch, roll, and heave). Soft high-piston velocity requires similarly soft Low-piston-velocity, so the stock rear shocks are too soft for good handling. In turn, the soft rear means that unfortunately the front must be underdamped as well: as Peter Pyce & I (Ceilidh) have independently noted, when front & rear damping rates are grossly unequal, a very annoying jiggling pitch sets in, making the ride uncomfortable. Hence although the front suspension can inherently take firmer damping than can the rear, the damping there too must be softened, so as to match the rear.
The upshot is that the stock Golf/Jetta IV is severely underdamped at low-piston-velocity, and hence it rolls, pitches, heaves, and generally responds to handling inputs with much less control than one would like.
Thus an excellent first GT step is to improve the damping. Within limits, it is possible to increase the low-piston-velocity damping (which would improve handling) in a shock without unduly increasing the high-piston-velocity damping (which would degrade ride comfort): such a shock is said to be highly "digressive" (opposite of progressive). (With such a shock, the damping forces ramp up very quickly at low piston speeds, but then rise more slowly if the piston begins moving faster.) It is difficult to make a shock that is highly but smoothly digressive, however, and it is even harder to have such a shock retain its nice characteristics over tens of thousands of miles. Therefore well-designed digressive shocks like the Koni Sports and Bilstein HDs are fairly costly.
With the Golf/Jetta IV, unfortunately, it appears to be impossible to get an even highly-digressive shock to be simultaneously soft enough at high-piston-speeds for bumps, while remaining stiff enough at low-piston-speeds for good handling. Hence the Koni Sport (which Peter Pyce's experiments seem to highly recommend over the Bilsteins) has to cheat:
a) to get enough low-speed damping for body control, the Koni Yellows are fairly stiff on bumps. Careful adjustment can do a lot to improve comfort (as both Pyce & Ceilidh have found), but the end result is still "busier" and firmer than stock.
b) given the overall stiff damping required, Koni appears to have specced a twin-tube design (they manufacture monotubes as well, for other applications) so that the shock is not particularly "quick-acting": when the shock begins to move (as when you hit a bump), it does very little damping for a few millimeters, and the damping force "rolls" in rather than comes in with a bang. This characteristic is undesirable for a very stiffly sprung racing car (which is why racing cars use monotube Konis, Bilsteins, Penskes, etc.), but in this application it softens the initial impact from potholes and the like. Hence by using the slower-acting twin tube design, Koni can retain reasonable comfort while increasing overall stiffness for better handling.
The upshot of the above is that, based on Peter's experiments, the extremely quick-acting Bilstein HD (which is an excellent shock, one that Ceilidh has had good experience with elsewhere) is NOT a good fitment for a GT-tuned Golf or Jetta IV. If a driver knows he will be driving on roads that do not have sharp high-speed impacts (no sharp-edged potholes or expansion strips on the highways), then Bilstein HDs should work fine. But if ride comfort is an issue, and if local roads (particularly high-speed roads) have sharp-edged bumps, it appears that Konis are the way to go.
In any event, the stock suspension is not bad at all for a GT suspension, save that it severely de-emphasizes #1 (Roadholding), and in stock form the shocks are so underdamped that body motions obscure the handling qualities. Replacing the stock shocks with Koni Sports all around will slightly degrade #5 (Ride Comfort) while improving #1-4 (everything else), chiefly by controlling the body motions and allowing the suspension to work as originally intended. As such it is an excellent first cut at the GT setup.
Next installment: we'll take a look at the Rear-Antiroll-Bar-on-a-Stock-Suspension setup, and try to sort through why some extremely knowledgeable and fair-minded people (e.g., John A) advocate it, while other extremely knowledgeable experts (e.g., Dick Shine, who even sells an excellent rear bar) caution against it.
Cheers, everyone!








- Ceilidh


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

Once again, thank you (and Peter, and the other contributors) for helping edu-ma-cate guys like me -- sharing your expertise is extremely beneficial to the rest of us!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (9 - Rear Bar with Stock Springs; Not GT)*

9. Rear Bar with Stock Springs
Reminder -- GT Goals
1) excellent roadholding (good mechanical grip) on a variety of road surfaces
2) forgiveness for unexpected events
3) handling that is consistent under changing road, weather, and load conditions
4) responsiveness to good throttle/brake/steering technique
5) reasonable ride comfort
We come now to a setup that inspires a lot of discussion on the Vortex: stock springs with an aftermarket 25mm or 28mm rear antiroll bar. Some people absolutely love it, calling it an ideal first mod after improved damping; others feel it is a misguided way to improve handling. What must be very confusing to the suspension novices is that some very experienced people come out on opposite sides of this discussion. So let's see why:

The Nice Things About a Rear AntiRoll Bar
If you add a rear antiroll bar to an otherwise stock Golf/Jetta IV, you reduce the amount of roll at low to moderate-high g-forces, and you increase the lateral weight transfer (again at low to moderately high g-forces) at the rear, while decreasing the transfer at the front. All these effects serve to decrease understeer: by reducing the roll, you keep the front tires more upright; and by decreasing the front lateral weight transfer, you increase the overall grip of the front end. Moreover, because the car rolls less (and because the "roll rate" -- the "springiness" of the car in roll -- is increased), it takes less time for the car to take a set, and the transition time is decreased.
Because of all the above, many people will like what a rear bar does to an otherwise stock Golf or Jetta: the car will corner flatter (at least at low- and mid- g-forces), it will turn-in more incisively, it will be quicker in left-right transitions, and in general everything will feel more agile. So for many people, a rear bar with stock springs can be pretty nice.

What's Not Nice About a Rear Bar with Stock Springs
The problem with the rear bar/ stock springs approach is that it doesn't move you towards a GT setup. In contrast to improved damping, which significantly improves #1-4 on the GT list at a modest cost to #5 alone, the rear bar/ stock springs setup will:
1) increase roadholding in some situations, make no difference in others, and actually degrade roadholding in some circumstances.
2) decrease forgiveness
3) degrade handling consistency under different weather/ road conditions
4) retain or slightly improve handling responsiveness
5) somewhat degrade ride comfort.
In short, the rear bar / stock springs approach tends to improve #4 while losing out on #1,2,3, and 5 -- that is, it can be nice for agility, but in other GT respects it's a bit of a step back.
The reasons why can best be seen by considering a stock Golf/Jetta at the cornering limit: at high lateral-g, the stock Golf/Jetta is understeering very heavily (because of the leaned over front tires) -- but it is also cornering on three wheels. This 3-wheel stance arises because even the stock suspension applies a lot of weight transfer across the rear wheels, so as to reduce understeer at low to medium g-forces.
Now consider a rear bar / stock spring car, cornering at the same speed & lateral-g. It too is cornering in a 3-wheel stance. Moreover, the rear outside wheel is carrying the same load as before (the weight of the back of the car), while the front lateral weight transfer is the same as before (because the total weight transfer is determined by the CG, mass, and track width, not by springing). Because the front springs are the same as before, the roll must be the same as before. And if the roll is the same as before, the front tires are leaning over the same as before.
Hence at high lateral-g, the rear bar/ stock spring car is cornering exactly the way the stock car corners, with the same heavy amount of understeer. Moreover, the ultimate roadholding limits are no higher than before, and are indeed perhaps a little less on rough roads: as discussed earlier, by putting on a stiff bar, you've increased the 1-wheel spring rate (which decreases mechanical grip), and you've made it more difficult to set the shocks to cope with both 1-wheel and 2-wheel bumps (which further reduces grip).
Perhaps even worse (as discussed in an earlier post in this thread) you've now exaggerated how the handling changes with g-force: at low to moderate g, you understeer much less than before (because the car corners flatter, and there's more weight transfer at the rear wheels), but at high-g you still understeer a lot (because once you're 3-wheeling, you can't shift any more weight onto the outside rear tire, and the amount of roll is controlled entirely by the stock front suspension). If the understeer at low g-force is reduced enough, you can in some cases (judging by Forum posts) get to a point where the car handles differently on slick roads (where it's tail-happy) than it does on dry roads (where it's forgiving and benign). That's a terrible thing to have happen on a GT car: the last thing you want is a car that corners safely on dry roads, but which turns vicious when the weather is bad.
Bottom line, a rear bar on stock springs can make the car more agile and "fun" (particularly at low cornering speeds, or in gentle curves).....but it can't raise the ultimate roadholding, it still permits stock levels of understeer at the limit, and if overdone (with a big rear bar at full-stiff setting) it can significantly degrade handling consistency when the weather changes. Oh, and given how sensitive the rear is to stiffening, your ride comfort and rear traction will also deteriorate somewhat on bumpy roads.

Why Everybody is Right
Given all the above, why do so many people advocate adding a rear bar to a stock suspension? Part of it is that a mild bar (stress the word "mild") can be pretty nice -- the wet weather handling won't get too tail-happy, and the increased agility at moderate speeds can feel very welcome. Part of it is that most of us never really drive near the limits anyway, and therefore we're always in the low-to-medium g-force range where a rear bar can reduce the understeer. And part of it is that many people simply don't want a "GT" suspension. In particular, track racers want to get power to the pavement on corner exit (see Daemon42's posts on this subject), while autocrossers crave agility.
(Hmmm. Maybe here's a good time to explain something about autocross: when you have to throw a car around a tight series of cones, you a couple of related challenges. One is to get the car to quickly "rotate" around a cone; i.e., to get the car to rapidly turn-in and begin cornering. The other is to get the car to *stop* rotating at the appropriate time, so that you don't spin once you're actually in the corner. In this situation, having a car that has very little understeer (or that even oversteers) at low g-forces (which is the turn-in phase of a corner), but which gains a lot more rear-traction at high g-forces (when you're actually in the corner, and don't want to spin off), can often be a good thing. Thus a big rear bar and a relatively soft front can work for some autocrossers, depending upon their driving style, and you'll find many autocrossers who are fans of rear bars.)
Bottom line, if you want a little more snap and flatness in your suspension, especially at low to medium g-forces, go ahead and try a rear bar with stock springs. You might find it very pleasant (at the very least, to paraphrase something Peter found with a 28mm bar, increased ride harshness will make it seem like you're cornering faster!). But if your goal is "GT" -- real, effortless roadholding with good ride comfort and predictable forgiveness in all weather conditions -- there are better ways to go.
That's all for this week. See you all!








- Ceilidh


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Incidentally all this analysis applies to the regular MkIV Golf / Jetta or to all generations of the Golf / Jetta w/ the MacPherson strut fronts + rear twist beam rear?
And can this apply to other cars w/ the strut fronts + rear twist beam rear or do things vary from car to car?
Thanks!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Mencius01)*

Hi Mencius,
Unfortunately it's all over the map -- some of the stuff applies to all cars, some to FWD strut/twist beam, and some to only specific cars. Which part of the analysis were you wondering about?
- C


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hence at high lateral-g, the rear bar/ stock spring car is cornering exactly the way the stock car corners, with the same heavy amount of understeer. Moreover, the ultimate roadholding limits are no higher than before, and are indeed perhaps a little less on rough roads: as discussed earlier, by putting on a stiff bar, you've increased the 1-wheel spring rate (which decreases mechanical grip), and you've made it more difficult to set the shocks to cope with both 1-wheel and 2-wheel bumps (which further reduces grip).
but at high-g you still understeer a lot (because once you're 3-wheeling, you can't shift any more weight onto the outside rear tire, and the amount of roll is controlled entirely by the stock front suspension). 
it still permits stock levels of understeer at the limit
Bottom line, if you want a little more snap and flatness in your suspension, especially at low to medium g-forces, go ahead and try a rear bar with stock springs. You might find it very pleasant (at the very least, to paraphrase something Peter found with a 28mm bar, increased ride harshness will make it seem like you're cornering faster!). But if your goal is "GT" -- real, effortless roadholding with good ride comfort and predictable forgiveness in all weather conditions -- there are better ways to go.


These comments make me wonder if you have ever driven a MK4 with a rear swaybar added. regardless of the springs or tires chosen. 
Adding a rear bar will result in less understeer than stock in any and all situations, period, which can be much safer even in emergency situations AND on bumpy roads. It seems to me that you are using book theory on suspension tuning with limited practical experience. I have not read all of your posts in-depth because they are just too long and I haven't had time lately, but I hope the same errors are not present......
-Mike P
2)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (tyrolkid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tyrolkid* »_
These comments make me wonder if you have ever driven a MK4 with a rear swaybar added. regardless of the springs or tires chosen. 
Adding a rear bar will result in less understeer than stock in any and all situations, period, which can be much safer even in emergency situations AND on bumpy roads. It seems to me that you are using book theory on suspension tuning with limited practical experience. I have not read all of your posts in-depth because they are just too long and I haven't had time lately, but I hope the same errors are not present......
-Mike P
2)

Hi Mike,
Thanks for chiming in!
These posts are long, and I understand your not reading them, so let me mention that I've been asking for input from people about rear bars with stock springs (you were one of the people I had cited for info), and I'm just compiling what input I've received. (I'm a theorist (at least with FWD), and I'm trying to synthesize and make sense of what people are saying on this forum, so that people have a better chance of interpreting what they read.) So thanks for the input -- I'll comment on it in a bit, but right now I have to go teach a class -- see you later, and keep your great posts coming!!
- Ceilidh


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

I didnt mean to come off as being harsh, but I read some more of your posts, and the "theorist" in you is shining through








A lot of the things you have said do not apply to VW chassis tuning, or change dramatically in real world street and track driving. When I have more time I will print all these pages and present my findings.....


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hi Mike,
Thanks for chiming in!
These posts are long, and I understand your not reading them, so let me mention that I've been asking for input from people about rear bars with stock springs (you were one of the people I had cited for info), and I'm just compiling what input I've received. (I'm a theorist (at least with FWD), and I'm trying to synthesize and make sense of what people are saying on this forum, so that people have a better chance of interpreting what they read.) So thanks for the input -- I'll comment on it in a bit, but right now I have to go teach a class -- see you later, and keep your great posts coming!!
- Ceilidh

I installed an Autotech rear bar on my New Beetle with the "factory" Sport Suspension package. The car definitely cornered better but firmer dampers were needed still to slow down the weight transfer. That's where Bilstein HDs came along...


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_I installed an Autotech rear bar on my New Beetle with the "factory" Sport Suspension package. The car definitely cornered better but firmer dampers were needed still to slow down the weight transfer. That's where Bilstein HDs came along... 

And I'm in the same boat with my GTI. (Of course, I've got my Autotech adjustable on full stiff -- I know it's hamfisted, but I figure that while the roads are clear this time of year, I'll use it as a chance to learn something about the undesirable side-effects of the soft-spring/stiff-bar combo, and put it on a more long-term-realistic setting something later this summer....) Until then, all I can say is "lift-throttle oversteer."


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (OstTrefftWest)*

Confirmed on the "lift throttle oversteer". 
Also if you keep accelerating in a curve/twisty with decreasing radius, you'll notice the steering will oversteer. At the limit, it may even snap-oversteer or corkscrew. That's why stiffer front springs can balance things out.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (tyrolkid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tyrolkid* »_I didnt mean to come off as being harsh, but I read some more of your posts, and the "theorist" in you is shining through








A lot of the things you have said do not apply to VW chassis tuning, or change dramatically in real world street and track driving. When I have more time I will print all these pages and present my findings.....

Hi Mike,
No worries -- you didn't come off as harsh at all! It's great to get your input, as a theorist can only work with the data from trusted experimentalists (and you are definitely one of the *trusted* experimentalists!). To reiterate, I'm a RWD guy (vintage racing), and my only goal on the Vortex is to create a tuning framework that might help people predict what effect different suspension changes might create (there's too much "I installed XX and it absolutely rocks!!!", and people wind up spending lots of time and money trying to find a setup that works for them). To get that framework, I need data, and in particular I need to know where theory differs from practice -- when you post your findings, I will be a very avid reader!!
Now all that being said, here's the "data" I had to work with prior to your post:
1) I've seen lots of posts raving about 25mm or 28mm rear bars on otherwise stock suspensions, and we have John A (a very bright, experienced guy) recommending that setup to Newbies.
2) Conversely (though it's possible I've misinterpreted him -- in which case I apologize), I've seen posts from Dick Shine (another very bright, very experienced guy) where he seems to be warning people with lowered front ends (which increases rolling tendencies) that a big rear bar is not going to fix their handling problems.
3) I've got word from Peter Pyce (who's not a professional, but whom I trust as someone who can honestly and accurately describe the sensations from different setups) that a 28mm bar on a stock setup feels fast and flat, but is noticeably rougher riding and slower than a Shine front spring/ stock rear/ no bar setup, especially on bumpy roads.
4) Then there are multiple posts from big bar/stock spring fans talking about oversteer issues on slick roads (here, for once, I have personal experience on a Fiesta with a very light aftermarket bar; the tail-happiness in snow was noticeably increased).
5) And I'm reasonably confident with physics, as that's part of my job.








And so the theory on the last big post was one that reconciles #1-#5 -- if there's a #6, #7, #8, etc. that I'll have to also consider (and it sounds like there are), then do post them up, as that will change the theory.
In the end, it's not the theory that matters -- it's the guidelines and predictions that come out of it. What Peter and I are working towards is a tuning guide that people can refer to and agree on (i.e., a guide that says "If you add component "X" to your car, then you will experience "Y" and "Z"). There's enough contradiction out there that to produce a guide that's actually useful, we need an underlying theory that can account for what different knowledgeable people report. You are one of the most knowledgeable guys on this forum, so please do tell us what things don't apply to VW chassis tuning, or what changes dramatically in real world street driving! (The track stuff is less critical, as this thread is centered on rough road street setups.) Once I get that info from you (and f1forkvr6, Daemon42, JohnA, and the other real-world gurus) I'll revise the theory into something you guys can all sign off on. And wouldn't that be useful to the Newbies?








Thanks Mike -- take your time, but I really look forward to your input!
- Ceilidh


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
3) I've got word from Peter Pyce (who's not a professional, but whom I trust as someone who can honestly and accurately describe the sensations from different setups) that a 28mm bar on a stock setup feels fast and flat, but is noticeably rougher riding and slower than a Shine front spring/ stock rear/ no bar setup, especially on bumpy roads.....

Winston, I had been smashing my head in the wall the whole morning, trying to remember when did I say such thing and I really can't recall all this "28 bar with stock springs" setup comparison..... I tried to re-read some of the posts here, but it is time consuming and so far could not find it in there. You may refer to some e-mail that I sent you time ago, but I do not have copies of the outgoing e-mails, so I can't check that...... It would be great if you can refresh my memory and tell me how exactly did I ever come out with such a sentence, because I honestly can't remember saying this. Yes, I did have once a 28 mm bar, but it was not on stock springs. Then a friend has a bar on stock springs, but is with Konis and it is 25 mm bar. I am deeply confused and would be great if you can point me to where did I write about it........ I hope it was written in some context, with many other things to be taken in consideration, or some words like "guessing" were involved, because such statement as quoted above would have been pure imagination as I never had the 28 bar on when the rest was stock. I sure hope did not mislead the whole scenario here just because said something per mistake or did a grammar error, etc. Let's try to find where this comes from....... 
As for the rest of the write-ups you are doing, I think it is great work and hope you would continue. I for sure appreciate it! Thanks.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (tyrolkid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tyrolkid* »_
Adding a rear bar will result in less understeer than stock in any and all situations, period, which can be much safer even in emergency situations AND on bumpy roads. It seems to me that you are using book theory on suspension tuning with limited practical experience. I have not read all of your posts in-depth because they are just too long and I haven't had time lately, but I hope the same errors are not present......
-Mike P
2)

Ok, now here's the response to your comments (and again -- you're the real-world guy with the data; I'm the theorist trying to understand what you've found, so we can extend your data to other situations. So I'm going to challenge you, not because I think I'm right and you're wrong (by definition you can't be wrong, as you have the data!), but because I need to understand where I'm misinformed. Ok? Just remember (everyone): Mike is the expert, and I (Ceilidh) am trying to understand. So here goes: 
1) Does the stock chassis 3-wheel under extreme cornering, or does it not? I am going on posts from people who say that the stock chassis will 3-wheel. If it does, then a stock spring/ rear bar can is not going to have better ultimate roadholding than the stock car -- or rather, how can it? You're on 2 front wheels with stock springs & bar, and all the rear weight is on the outside wheel....
Hmm. Let's think about this a bit harder. The only dynamic difference is that, with a rear bar, the modified car has a higher rear 1-wheel spring rate, and with the inside wheel up in the air, there's a bit more adverse camber and a bit less toe-in. Can that give you less understeer? Yes on all 3 counts -- the higher spring rate reduces rough road traction, the reduced toe-in is obvious, and the adverse camber further degrades traction...but the toe-in is pretty small, and decreasing rear grip without increasing front grip (which is what's happening here) is a pretty poor way of tuning a car....
So let me ask you: have you experienced the reduction in at-the-limit understeer in a steady-state situation (as on a skid pad)? Or has it been in more dynamic situations? When all 4 wheels are planted (and when the 3-wheeling first starts), you'll definitely have less understeer, and so you'l have sharper turn-in and better rotation. And since understeer is upsetting to people mostly on corner entry (which is when you've got 4 wheels on the ground), maybe that's all you need? If that's what you mean, then yes, a big rear bar will give you better turn in and corner entry in all conditions -- no disagreement there! But I'd be surprised if you experienced a whole lot less understeer at the steady-state limit (if you did, then let me know! -- maybe the rear toe and camber is significant after all...).
Bottom line, a rear bar (as I thought I said, but maybe wasn't clear) can be really nice -- it'll reduce your understeer at lower-than-ultimate g-forces (which is where most of us spend our time), and it will really sharpen up your turn in and corner entry. But it's not going to improve your ultimate roadholding, and it's not going to give you the effortless roadholding that's the hallmark of a good GT setup. Can I assume we're in agreement here?








2) The next point is a bit more serious, and here I don't mind our having a major disagreement -- in fact, it's healthy, so long as the novices reading along understand why we disagree.
You are a racer (and by all reports, a good one), as are other posters on the Forum who cite the "dangers" of understeer. I, by contrast, was a very indifferent racer (well, at least I never hit anything...) with skills and experience probably a lot closer to that of most Newbies than it is to yours, and my training is mostly in production vehicles, not in race cars. And I'll disagree with you 100% on the understeer.
And here I'll speak to the lurkers, not to Mike, as I'll not be saying anything he doesn't already know -- but for the novices especially, you should understand why we disagree.
To reiterate the earlier post on understeer: *heavy* understeer in any vehicle is dangerous and bad. In a race-tuned vehicle, where the front tires are kept upright in a corner, even moderate understeer can be dangerous and bad. In both cases, you can wind up sitting there, twirling the wheel uselessly, and watching whatever it is you're about to hit. So when a skilled racer like Mike (Tyrolkid) says reducing understeer can be "much safer even in emergency situations", he has a valid reason for saying so. But....
Moderate understeer, in a street vehicle, is a very, very good thing. It is especially important if the vehicle is driven by non-race trained drivers, on a variety of roads, under varying weather and road conditions. In particular, understeer as it is invoked by production suspension engineeers, in which suspension geometry is used to "trick" the car into understeer long before the front tires hit the non-linear part of their traction curve, is a very good way to make a car that feels "natural" -- if you go too fast, the front end starts to plow, and you can correct by turning the steering wheel still harder and/or by simply slowing down.
Hmmm. How can I say this better?... It would be extremely easy for a manufacturer to reduce the understeer on even somethng like the much-criticized Golf/Jetta IV chassis (the fact that so many aftermarket tuners can reduce the understeer should probably tell us something....). And every manufacturer who sells even vaguely "sporty" cars has to contend with magazine testers who hate understeer, and who love cover photos of oversteering cars on opposite lock. So why would a manufacturer not take the easy steps to reduce the understeer on their wares? Blame the lawyers. And the actuaries. And the accountants. People crash, and after they do, they (or their legal survivors) sue the company that built the car, which costs the company money. As a result, manufacturers of sporty cars have a very finely-tuned sense for just how "sweet-handling" their cars can be before enough people start crashing that they face lawsuits and loss of sales. And thus the amount of understeer in a stock car is there for a reason -- if you're a skilled driver (like Tyrolkid) you can take a lot out and still be perfectly safe. But if you're an average driver (and most of us are more average than we care to admit), you'll want to be careful how much you take out. Most of us can handle some understeer reduction, but not a huge amount -- and the trick with GT setups is to reduce it in a way that's safe in all weathers.
Don't believe that understeer is there for a good reason? Let's look at a concrete example. Somewhere on this forum, Mike (Tyrolkid) has a thread on installing TT spindles on a Golf/Jetta. It's a great thread, and if you haven't read it, do a search and look it over. Mike has done a great job researching and testing a mod that can drastically reduce understeer without automatically invoking a harsh ride, wearing the front tires unevenly, or screwing up the steering geometry. By all reports, it's an intriguing mod, and one which the truly keen should examine and consider. But that raises a question: just what is this mod, and why hasn't VW done it already?
The mod (and apologies to Mike if I get details wrong) is basically to replace the front spindle on a Golf/Jetta with one from an Audi TT (which is based on the Golf IV chassis). This spindle has a balljoint location that is lower than standard Golf fare, which lowers the outboard end of the lower control arm. Not to go into geometric details here, but the result of this lowered balljoint is a camber curve that is much closer to what you want in a performance car: basically, the front outside tire will stay much more upright as the car rolls, which drastically reduces the understeer, improves turn in, etc., etc. It's a great mod.
So why doesn't VW do it already? They already make the part for the TT, and it'd be simple to tool up a spindle that custom fits the Golf/Jetta. What's the problem?
The problem (as regular readers of this thread will have already guessed) is that the highish ball joint on the Golf/Jetta is deliberately there to lean the front tire in a corner (thereby causing understeer, etc.). It's there because of the lawyers, and because without that high ball joint, more people start crashing.
Now, when VW came out with the TT, the product managers took a gamble: they knew that by simply lowering the ball joint on the Golf-based TT chassis, they could drastically cut understeer, and make the car much sweeter handling -- but they also knew that doing so would delay the onset of understeer (you'd have to go faster before it sets in), as well as reducing the absolute amount of understeer (which cuts the safety factor for lift-throttle, etc.). That means that people would driver harder before they received obvious warning signals, and then they'd have less margin for recovering. But they gambled that the people who would drive the TT -- real enthusiasts -- would be more skilled drivers than the average people buying Golfs, and that these enthusiasts would gladly trade some forgiveness for greatly reduced understeer. Big mistake.
Six months after the TT came out in Europe (before the N. America launch), Audi had to issue a fleet-wide recall. People were crashing, spectacularly and frequently enough as to draw outraged articles in ordinary newspapers and magazines. Many of these crashes occurred on the Autobahn with German drivers (who are much more skilled than the ordinary American) -- at high speeds the tail would lift, and then lift-throttle oversteer would spin them into the barriers -- but others were at lower speeds. Almost all involved lift-throttle spins while cornering. People drove too fast, sensed trouble too late, tried to slow down, and then spun and crashed To solve the problem, Audi installed rear spoilers (the first TTs had smooth rumps), instituted a host of front end changes to soften the steering and increase understeer (they kept the front spindle, but changed the spring, bar, bushings, and shocks), and installed electronic stability programs (ESP) across the board to keep the cars on the road. The resulting car was not nearly as sweet handling as the original (British car mags lamented how much softer and duller the handling had become) -- but it became much safer for the average Joe.
The above might sound like I'm criticizing Mike's TT-spindle mod. I'm not -- it's a great tuning modification, and if you're a skilled driver looking for something that will transform your handling, talk to Mike and see if it's for you. But if you're not a skilled driver, and you'll be mostly driving on the street, be careful. A skilled driver will often be safer in a car that understeers less. But an average driver (and unless you've raced, autocrossed, taken a driving course, or have been opposite-locking across the Great White North most of your life, you're probably "average") can only take out a moderate amount of understeer before emergency situations become dangerous.
Anyway, feel free to believe either Mike or me. He's a good guy who knows his stuff. But we have a philosophical difference here.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Winston, I had been smashing my head in the wall the whole morning, trying to remember when did I say such thing and I really can't recall all this "28 bar with stock springs" setup comparison..... I tried to re-read some of the posts here, but it is time consuming and so far could not find it in there. You may refer to some e-mail that I sent you time ago, but I do not have copies of the outgoing e-mails, so I can't check that...... It would be great if you can refresh my memory and tell me how exactly did I ever come out with such a sentence, because I honestly can't remember saying this. Yes, I did have once a 28 mm bar, but it was not on stock springs. Then a friend has a bar on stock springs, but is with Konis and it is 25 mm bar. I am deeply confused and would be great if you can point me to where did I write about it........ I hope it was written in some context, with many other things to be taken in consideration, or some words like "guessing" were involved, because such statement as quoted above would have been pure imagination as I never had the 28 bar on when the rest was stock. I sure hope did not mislead the whole scenario here just because said something per mistake or did a grammar error, etc. Let's try to find where this comes from....... 
As for the rest of the write-ups you are doing, I think it is great work and hope you would continue. I for sure appreciate it! Thanks.

Hi Peter,
It was the email you sent me last week, where you talked about a 28mm setup being flatter riding but lower-performing than your Shine Front/ no bar setup. I thought you meant 28mm/ stock spring, but that must be the 28mm / aftermarket spring setup referred to above. My mistake.







So presumably the rough ride came from the springs, and not the bar? And does that mean that without the springs, a rear bar/ stock spring car would roll more than your car does now?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Winston, send me that e-mail back, please, I want to see the whole context because all together it may make different sense or perhaps an error that I made in grammar could have changed the meaning of the whole thing


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
and decreasing rear grip without increasing front grip (which is what's happening here) is a pretty poor way of tuning a car....


And yet, this is exactly how we tune suspensions on a FWD car with a 70/30 front/rear weight distribution.
I also happen to agree with Tyrolkid here that a big rear bar does decrease understeer at all speeds. 
Although I should mention that when the overall lateral grip is very low (snow and ice), I find
the rear bar has *less* of an effect. Certainly less than you've implied it does. Keeping mind, I've 
had the Shine rear bar on my car through several winters, driven to Montana and back every
winter sometimes with snow and ice on the roads for several hundred miles of the trip. 
When the lateral grip is low, so is the max weight transfer. If the weight transfer is low, 
then the rear bar really does very little. In snow or ice, I've never felt the rear end to be 
all that light. The only time I've noticed it in a low traction environment was 
on a gravel road which sort of straddles the middle ground, where getting the car sideways
actually can cause a fairly high weight transfer as the edges of the tires dig in. 

_Quote »_
So let me ask you: have you experienced the reduction in at-the-limit understeer in a steady-state situation (as on a skid pad)? Or has it been in more dynamic situations? 


Steady state/dynamic.. on 4 wheels.. or on 3.. all yes. In fact with a big rear bar, and an upper rear 
stress bar you really can't feel the transition from 4 to 3 wheels at all. My passengers
certainly are never aware of it. It's progressive and smooth. 
At the moment just before the inside rear tire lifts, it may still be on the ground, but it's not providing 
any lateral traction. There's nothing sudden about it, and as you say the one wheel spring rate is
still higher on that outside rear even when on 3 wheels. 

_Quote »_
Bottom line, a rear bar (as I thought I said, but maybe wasn't clear) can be really nice -- it'll reduce your understeer at lower-than-ultimate g-forces (which is where most of us spend our time), and it will really sharpen up your turn in and corner entry. But it's not going to improve your ultimate roadholding, and it's not going to give you the effortless roadholding that's the hallmark of a good GT setup. Can I assume we're in agreement here?










No, I don't think Tyrolkid will agree with you, nor do I. I've explained and demonstrated how the big rear 
bar transfers weight to the inside front before increasing ultimate lateral grip before. Personally, I think 
the big rear bar is really the heart of a good "GT" setup as opposed to say an Auto-X setup. My idea of a GT
setup is one that feels more neutral in steady state cornering at high speeds and high lateral
loads, and favors traction out of corners, rather than an Auto-X setup which favors minimal body roll,
razor sharp turn-in and dead predictable rotation. You've taken some of your cues
about "the Auto-X setup" from John A, but he's actually in the minority there, where most
people run huge front sway bars and stock rear sways (a lot to do with the fact that
the stock classes don't allow rear bars, so people have developed suspensions that
work around that limitation, and then stick to it as they move into other classes).
Your idea of a GT setup is really a lot closer to what a lot of Auto-Xer's use. 
At normal tire pressures and less extreme static negative camber this setup will exhibit 
firm, heavy steering, but the turn-in is very sharp and the body stays level all the time 
minimizing unwanted camber changes. 

_Quote »_
2) The next point is a bit more serious, and here I don't mind our having a major disagreement -- in fact, it's healthy, so long as the novices reading along understand why we disagree.
You are a racer (and by all reports, a good one), as are other posters on the Forum who cite the "dangers" of understeer. I, by contrast, was a very indifferent racer (well, at least I never hit anything...) with skills and experience probably a lot closer to that of most Newbies than it is to yours, and my training is mostly in production vehicles, not in race cars. And I'll disagree with you 100% on the understeer.


Not surprising where you're headed with this , but again I think this is a difference between FWD and RWD 
mentality. Understeer is *safe feeling*, but in the end it takes away your choices. Again, we're talking cars with 
70/30 weight distribution, putting 150-200 horsepower through the front wheels. The front tires are forced to do 
*everything*. They handle 100% of the going, 95% of the stopping, and about 70-80% of the turning. 
The rears are usually just along for the ride. Our rear tires don't wear at all. We store fresh tires on the rear
until we're ready to rotate them to the front. (I'm not kidding) This makes for cars that have understeering so 
deeply ingrained in them that it's very hard to get them to do anything else. In a true emergency an 
understeering car just goes *straight*. Straight into whatever obstacle you'd really rather avoid, and this is in fact
how most FWD cars exit the road. A lot of us would prefer to be able to change the direction of the car
instead and drive around the problem. Yes it takes more drive skill, but as long as you've
made that *choice*, and are aware of it, then it opens up more possibilities in an emergency situation.
Will the average driver make the right choice? Maybe, maybe not. 
Perhaps the average driver shouldn't have been going as fast as they were in the first place.
Perhaps someone should have smacked them upside the head during driver training and told them 
that lifting off the throttle midcorner is bad *regardless* of their suspension. The stock suspension 
can be made to lift throttle oversteer, but the difference is that it's a lot less *predictable* (I suspect
you don't believe that). It happens when you least expect it, because the car normally understeers 
so obnoxiously that the first time you feel the rear end loose, you're basically screwed, having
never had to deal with it it before. 
<story of TT recall deleted. I am curious to hear of some actual low speed crashes though. The problem
was always reported as "high speed instability". The TT's big problem is that it's shaped like a wing and 
the rear end gets ridiculously light at speed. Always been hard for me, as an engineer, to really like the 
TT because it's a triumph of form over function.>

_Quote »_
Anyway, feel free to believe either Mike or me. He's a good guy who knows his stuff. But we have a philosophical difference here.









The real philisophical difference here is whether you believe people come to the Suspension Tuning forum 
looking for fast, but safe, predictable, perhaps even boring suspensions, or whether they're looking for 
something that *feels* sportier (quicker turn-in, more neutral steady state cornering and perhaps even the 
ability to induce oversteer) even when driving below 10/10ths. I tend to believe the latter.
I make this point because my R32.. fullfills *all* the requirements of your point of view. It's absurdly fast
in the twisties. It is not the ultimate fastest car out there (relative to STi, EVO, M3), but I'd put money down 
that the "average" driver can drive the R32 faster than they could a lot of cars that are universally considered 
much faster. The R32 exhibits no surprises when pushed over the limit, and is fast enough *at* 
the limit to hang with most anything on the road. Seems the perfect GT setup right? 
The problem is, the rear suspension is obnoxiously soft. Soft springs, soft dampers, tiny little rear
sway bar. (bout the diameter of my little finger). All this softness means the rear end seem 
permanently glued to the ground. Ok, so what? The problem is, it's not enjoyable at
7 or 8/10th. It's more neutral than most stock GTIs, sure, but then it's carrying a few hundred lbs
more weight out back with the AWD drivetrain, so it has a better weight distribution. 
But it has fairly resolute "mild understeer", and the only way to get it to not do that is to either
brake deep deep into a corner at 10/10ths (I've done this chasing an STi, while watching it execute
a perfect "mild oversteer" stance in front of me).. or to chop the throttle quickly midcorner 
anywhere above about 8/10ths. (Just the sort of thing you wouldn't normally recommend for a FWD car). 
What I want is a car that feels more sporting at something less than twice the legal limit.
To me, that's what defines a great GT setup. Perhaps we need a new category
(or perhaps you already had it, and I missed it) of "Sports car". Let GT be the
predictable understeering suspension, and what the rest of us want, be 
the more neutral one. I dunno. 
BTW.. my plan to remedy the situation is HPA's KW V1 based SHS coilovers (set at stock ride height)
and if that doesn't accomplish what I want, I'll start looking at rear sway bars.
ian


_Modified by Daemon42 at 2:04 PM 4-23-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Winston, send me that e-mail back, please, I want to see the whole context because all together it may make different sense or perhaps an error that I made in grammar could have changed the meaning of the whole thing









Hi Peter,
I've just resent the email to you -- it looks like I just misinterpreted it. Again, my apologies, and hope it hasn't caused you any trouble!
Ok, now to read Ian's comments in more detail!
- C


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Daemon42)*

Hello Ian,
Good to hear from you again! How is the R32? Hope you're enjoying it, and I'll try to go through your comments in sequence.

_Quote, originally posted by *Daemon42* »_
And yet, this is exactly how we tune suspensions on a FWD car with a 70/30 front/rear weight distribution.
I also happen to agree with Tyrolkid here that a big rear bar does decrease understeer at all speeds. 


I was probably unclear here.
Agreed: the idea of increasing lateral weight transfer at the rear is to simultaneously reduce the grip at the back (via the imbalanced loading) while simultaneously increasing the grip at the front (via reducing the imbalance at that end of the car). In effect you're trading losses at the rear with gains at the front.
But if you can do it, a better bet is to preserve the rear and increase the front (which is what Tyrolkid's TT spindle mod apparently does).
Now, if you have to, you can degrade the rear while preserving the front (which is what's happening here), but why do it if you can increase (not just preserve) front roadholding? That's what I meant (but explained poorly) -- if you're 3-wheeling and are experiencing too much understeer, a better bet is to find a way to increase the front traction (as by getting the front wheels to stand more upright).
As for the understeer reduction at all speeds -- skip a couple of quotes...

_Quote »_
Although I should mention that when the overall lateral grip is very low (snow and ice), I find
the rear bar has *less* of an effect. Certainly less than you've implied it does. Keeping mind, I've 
had the Shine rear bar on my car through several winters, driven to Montana and back every
winter sometimes with snow and ice on the roads for several hundred miles of the trip. 
When the lateral grip is low, so is the max weight transfer. If the weight transfer is low, 
then the rear bar really does very little. In snow or ice, I've never felt the rear end to be 
all that light. The only time I've noticed it in a low traction environment was 
on a gravel road which sort of straddles the middle ground, where getting the car sideways
actually can cause a fairly high weight transfer as the edges of the tires dig in. 


Your experience is a bit different from mine here, but that's why it's good you're posting, to give us all more data!
With stiffer rear bars on a Fiesta and a Golf A2, I found there to be more oversteer on low traction surfaces (I'm from Canada originally, and learned my winter driving there). But if Golf A3s and A4s are different, that's good to know (anyone else want to add anything?).
As a side note, the F/R distribution of lateral weight transfer is probably more rear-loaded at low g-forces than at high-g, owing to the high rear roll center (which is more important when there's little roll). But I agree with you that fore & aft weight transfer is a lot lower in slick conditions, which reduces the potential to spin. But on my A2, the rear loading was enough that on occasion I had the rear end break loose on acceleration at snowy T-junctions (no lift throttle at all!).
Your gravel road observations are interesting; I'll file that one away for the future.

_Quote »_
Steady state/dynamic.. on 4 wheels.. or on 3.. all yes. In fact with a big rear bar, and an upper rear 
stress bar you really can't feel the transition from 4 to 3 wheels at all. My passengers
certainly are never aware of it. It's progressive and smooth. 
At the moment just before the inside rear tire lifts, it may still be on the ground, but it's not providing 
any lateral traction. There's nothing sudden about it, and as you say the one wheel spring rate is
still higher on that outside rear even when on 3 wheels. 


Ian, does the stock chassis lift a rear wheel? And if so, how early does it do so? That might be the source of the confusion (and perhaps of my error):
If the stock chassis stays 4-wheeling even at the limit, then the big-rear-bar will always understeer less. No question about that, and my apologies if I was unclear.
If the stock chassis goes to 3 wheels near the limit, then I think (judging from everyone's responses) that I was not at all clear in saying something else (and again I apologize):
At the moment a big-bar car goes onto three wheels, it is still understeering less than a stock car going at the same speed (i.e., no disagreement here). It has to: the big-bar car has more weight on the outside rear wheel, there's less weight transfer at the front, and (because the car is rolling less than stock) the front tires are more upright. Hence the fronts have more traction, and the rear has less, which is what everyone expects.
But if the big-bar car continues to corner harder, and it begins to lift the inside wheel still higher, things change. There is no more weight transfer at the rear (there can't be -- the rear wheel is already bearing all the weight), but weight transfer increases at the front (as does the camber) and the understeer begins to increase. It's still less than in the 4-wheeling stock car, but the advantage of the big-bar car is starting to disappear.
The advantage continues to decline until the moment that the stock car finally begins to 3-wheel as well. When that happens, neither car can transfer more weight to the outside rear wheel, and both cars are running on stock front springs and bars. I guess if the rear-bar car has the inside wheel hiked way up in the air, then maybe adverse camber in the rear will reduce the understeer some amount, but in terms of weight transfer, both the big-bar car and the stock car at the same, regardless of rear spring or bar stiffness.
And so (and here's where I was even more unclear), if the stock car never 3-wheels, then the big-bar car always wins. But if the stock car 3-wheels, then the big-bar car has a big advantage up to the moment it (the big-bar car) lifts a wheel. After that, it still has an advantage, but one that declines steadily, until the big-bar car is going at the speed where the stock car will lift a wheel too. Beyond that speed, the weight transfer on the two cars is identical, and the level of understeer and roadholding should be similar.
Gosh, many apologies to everyone today







....if I gave the impression that a rear bar doesn't reduce understeer in most normal (or even spirited driving), please forgive me -- it does. But the point I was trying to make is that, if the stock car goes onto 3-wheels in extremis, the big-bar car -- at the steady state limit -- is going to have close to stock levels of roadholding and understeer (unless perhaps the inside wheel is sky-high). And thus there's a concern that an inexperienced driver, who maybe gets used to the handling balance at the 3-wheeling dry limit, is going to get caught out by tail-happiness on slick roads.
Anyway, if the stock car is always 4-wheeling, then the big-bar car always understeers less. Could that be the source of the confusion? Does the stock car always stay on 4 wheels?

_Quote »_
No, I don't think Tyrolkid will agree with you, nor do I. I've explained and demonstrated how the big rear 
bar transfers weight to the inside front before increasing ultimate lateral grip before. Personally, I think 
the big rear bar is really the heart of a good "GT" setup as opposed to say an Auto-X setup. My idea of a GT
setup is one that feels more neutral in steady state cornering at high speeds and high lateral
loads, and favors traction out of corners, rather than an Auto-X setup which favors minimal body roll,
razor sharp turn-in and dead predictable rotation. You've taken some of your cues
about "the Auto-X setup" from John A, but he's actually in the minority there, where most
people run huge front sway bars and stock rear sways (a lot to do with the fact that
the stock classes don't allow rear bars, so people have developed suspensions that
work around that limitation, and then stick to it as they move into other classes).
Your idea of a GT setup is really a lot closer to what a lot of Auto-Xer's use. 
At normal tire pressures and less extreme static negative camber this setup will exhibit 
firm, heavy steering, but the turn-in is very sharp and the body stays level all the time 
minimizing unwanted camber changes. 


Thanks for the clarification on Autocrossing setups - you guys are the experts on what works and what people use there!!
We also agree (surprise!







) on the definition of how a good GT setup should behave, save that I've always been more power-limited than you seem to be (traction out of corner is less of a concern for me). When we talk about the real GT setups, I'll make sure everyone knows that if high power (or driving style & conditions) make corner-exit traction a concern, then a bigger rear bar will be called for.
[/QUOTE]
Not surprising where you're headed with this , but again I think this is a difference between FWD and RWD 
mentality. Understeer is *safe feeling*, but in the end it takes away .... (body of quote omitted).... The stock suspension 
can be made to lift throttle oversteer, but the difference is that it's a lot less *predictable* (I suspect
you don't believe that). It happens when you least expect it, because the car normally understeers 
so obnoxiously that the first time you feel the rear end loose, you're basically screwed, having
never had to deal with it it before.
[/QUOTE]
We've had our philosophical differences here before, and as always I have the fullest respect for your views and experiences. But we do disagree, and once again, that's healthy. Your views on understeer are those shared by the majority of people in the tuning community (have I mentioned how much I respect John A and Tyrolkid?







), and I'm just offering a counterpoint. People can choose to agree more with you than with me (and I suspect they'll agree with you!), but it's probably good to have the debate.
So to continue the debate







: I do think that your acceptance of reduced understeer is shaped by your own skill as a driver, and although a more neutral car is much safer than a heavily-understeering one when driven by someone of your (or even lesser) skills, the actuarial tables don't lie: when sporty low-priced cars have too much understeer taken out of them, unacceptably large numbers of people start wrapping themselves around trees -- and the people doing the wrapping are typically single males in their teens and early-mid 20s (i.e., the very people who are enthusiasts and who take pride in their driving skills). (note: it's less of an issue with expensive cars, as they typically have multilink rears and (these days) electronics to give neutral handling with forgiveness; plus the drivers are somehow usually more sedate...)
The issue is not the reflexes and innate talent of these drivers, but instead it's (as you've just said) their experience level: you and I have had the good fortune and pleasure of driving cars that step out at the rear (and I've had the dubious good fortune of driving a variety of really bad-handling cars (e.g., Triumph Spitfire) in the rain for many years), and thus we have the experience to know what we want. You're probably a better driver than I am, and you know that you want a neutral car that you accurately control. Me, I've been given competitive proof that I'm basically just average, and having seen what cars can do in emergency situations (and knowing my now-rusty skills in controlling them), I don't mind a bit of understeer. So we can choose. But a newbie, especially one in his early 20's with enough income to buy a new Golf/ Jetta, has probably spent his life driving nice, fairly modern cars that have had untold engineering hours spent making them forgiving. So yes, you're absolutely right, the first time one of them hits real oversteer, they won't have had the prior experience to know what to do. Now, if we can convince everyone who wants to "tune" their suspensions to first take a Bondurant or Jim Russell Course, or to take their cars to an autocross track and see what they do at the limit, then I'd be absolutely with you in advising everyone to tune for more neutrality. But since most people won't do that, I think they're better off with a more understeering setup, at least to start with.
But again, I respect your perspective, and you raise many excellent points!










_Quote »_
<story of TT recall deleted. I am curious to hear of some actual low speed crashes though. The problem
was always reported as "high speed instability". The TT's big problem is that it's shaped like a wing and 
the rear end gets ridiculously light at speed. Always been hard for me, as an engineer, to really like the 
TT because it's a triumph of form over function.>


Yes, it was always reported in the press as high speed instability, and it was only the more probing investigative types who said there was more to it. Perhaps it was just reporters trying to make a story more juicy; but conversely it was to Audi's advantage to ascribe it to something comparatively straightforward. So who knows? The reports/ conjectures about lower speed (and what does that mean? 50mph? 60 mph?) mostly surfaced when the raft of "fixes" was released: people wondered why ESP and front-end "dulling" had to be introduced in conjunction with the rear spoiler, if the problem was simply aerodynamics.
Yes, it is a pretty non-functional design, isn't it?! That's one reason I've always liked Golfs -- it is what it is.

_Quote »_
The real philisophical difference here is whether you believe people come to the Suspension Tuning forum 
looking for fast, but safe, predictable, perhaps even boring suspensions, or whether they're looking for 
something that *feels* sportier (quicker turn-in, more neutral steady state cornering and perhaps even the 
ability to induce oversteer) even when driving below 10/10ths. I tend to believe the latter.


Yes, I think you're right. Certainly I would prefer something that feels a bit faster & sportier at normal speeds (my A2 Golf was much better in this respect). We seem to have morphed onto the GT concept in this thread because, well, I don't know why -- it just seemed to happen! If we ever do write up a how-to guide on the GT setup, we'll make sure everyone knows there are more fun things out there.

_Quote »_
I make this point because my R32.. fullfills *all* the requirements of your point of view. It's absurdly fast
in the twisties. It is not the ultimate fastest car out there (relative to STi, EVO, M3), but I'd put money down 
that the "average" driver can drive the R32 faster than they could a lot of cars that are universally considered 
much faster. The R32 exhibits no surprises when pushed over the limit, and is fast enough *at* 
the limit to hang with most anything on the road. Seems the perfect GT setup right? 
The problem is, the rear suspension is obnoxiously soft. Soft springs, soft dampers, tiny little rear
sway bar. (bout the diameter of my little finger). All this softness means the rear end seem 
permanently glued to the ground. Ok, so what? The problem is, it's not enjoyable at
7 or 8/10th. It's more neutral than most stock GTIs, sure, but then it's carrying a few hundred lbs
more weight out back with the AWD drivetrain, so it has a better weight distribution. 
But it has fairly resolute "mild understeer", and the only way to get it to not do that is to either
brake deep deep into a corner at 10/10ths (I've done this chasing an STi, while watching it execute
a perfect "mild oversteer" stance in front of me).. or to chop the throttle quickly midcorner 
anywhere above about 8/10ths. (Just the sort of thing you wouldn't normally recommend for a FWD car). 
What I want is a car that feels more sporting at something less than twice the legal limit.
To me, that's what defines a great GT setup. Perhaps we need a new category
(or perhaps you already had it, and I missed it) of "Sports car". Let GT be the
predictable understeering suspension, and what the rest of us want, be 
the more neutral one. I dunno. 


Ian, you're probably going to think I've gone soft, but I absolutely agree with you! You've stated it beautifully! That's the car I want -- it's what the old A2 GTI was, and it's what the new MINI is supposed to be. It's just not clear that the A4 Golf/Jetta is capable doing that - at least not without becoming pretty rough-riding or (to my view) potentially unforgiving. If it is possible, we'll broadcast it to everyone! But at the moment, Peter's experiments towards a workable GT setup seem pretty interesting, and I'll probably try that out next for myself.

_Quote »_
BTW.. my plan to remedy the situation is HPA's KW V1 based SHS coilovers (set at stock ride height)
and if that doesn't accomplish what I want, I'll start looking at rear sway bars.


Keep us posted -- if you get a "Sports Car" setup that works (with a decent ride, and.....maybe a little forgiveness for those of us who are less-skilled







, that would be wonderful to hear about!!
All the best, and thanks for the comments!
- Ceilidh
ian

_Modified by Daemon42 at 2:04 PM 4-23-2004_[/QUOTE]


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Just a quick note, as seen the question few times already, but it had not been answered...... the stock A4 lifts the rear wheel when fast change in directions occurs at high speeds. I will post a picture if there are nonbelievers


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

I agree with Ian.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (OstTrefftWest)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OstTrefftWest* »_
And I'm in the same boat with my GTI. (Of course, I've got my Autotech adjustable on full stiff -- I know it's hamfisted, but I figure that while the roads are clear this time of year, I'll use it as a chance to learn something about the undesirable side-effects of the soft-spring/stiff-bar combo, and put it on a more long-term-realistic setting something later this summer....) Until then, all I can say is "lift-throttle oversteer."









Hello OstTrefftWest and Cadenza!
Just wanted to say thank you very much for your contributions -- I'll be looking forward to hearing what you guys discover as you play around with these rear bar / stock spring setups, so please do keep us posted!
Also, if I could ask you two to elaborate on a couple of things (just to make sure I understand you correctly):
1) Cadenza, when you said you need(ed) stiffer shocks to control the weight transfer, did you mean fore & aft transfer (e.g., braking & acceleration), or lateral (roll at corner entry)? If it's in roll that you feel underdamped, was the underdamped feeling the same before vs. after putting on the rear bar, or did you feel more of a need for better damping after the bar went on?
2) OstTrefft, how big is the Autotech bar (i.e., is it one of the stiffer ones, or is it fairly light)? I've never been in Indiana, so please forgive my ignorance, but it snows there, doesn't it? What's your car like on snowy roads? Ian's found (with an A3, if I understood his post correctly) that any tail-happiness is less on slick roads than on dry, whereas my experience (with a rear-bar Fiesta and A2 Golf -- my current Golf is stock on the springing) was that the tail could get pretty light. You have an A4, right? Did you notice any difference in LTO between dry vs. snowy roads?
3) And Cadenza once again -- am I correct in interpreting your post as saying you had oversteer under acceleration? (i.e., not a lift-throttle effect?) That's pretty interesting! What speed & situation did that occur in? I've had tail-slides with a stiffish rear (in an old A2) under acceleration, but that generally happened only in deepish snow, at low speed while pulling out of side junctions and merging into traffic; for me it was a corner-exit phenomenon, a matter of the car not wanting to stop rotating when I wanted it to straighten out. How exactly does your oversteer take place? And did you sense this effect on dry roads, or slick?
Thanks very much again, you two, and have a good weekend!
- Ceilidh


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_*Also, if I could ask you two to elaborate on a couple of things (just to make sure I understand you correctly):
1) Cadenza, when you said you need(ed) stiffer shocks to control the weight transfer, did you mean fore & aft transfer (e.g., braking & acceleration), or lateral (roll at corner entry)? If it's in roll that you feel underdamped, was the underdamped feeling the same before vs. after putting on the rear bar, or did you feel more of a need for better damping after the bar went on?*

Without the bar, the car begins to roll and hints its lateral grip limitation relatively early. With the rear bar installed, lateral roll was decreased and I was able to take the esses/twisties faster. But there remains an *area between successive lateral weight transfers* where the bar is not under load. With stock dampers, the lateral weight shifts in this area is very sloppy. The higher rate Bilstein HDs _slow down_ the weight transfers. Of course, stiffer springs would help too but my NB sees bad roads on a daily basis. Squat and dive were also diminished dramatically. 

_Quote »_*3) And Cadenza once again -- am I correct in interpreting your post as saying you had oversteer under acceleration? (i.e., not a lift-throttle effect?) That's pretty interesting! What speed & situation did that occur in? I've had tail-slides with a stiffish rear (in an old A2) under acceleration, but that generally happened only in deepish snow, at low speed while pulling out of side junctions and merging into traffic; for me it was a corner-exit phenomenon, a matter of the car not wanting to stop rotating when I wanted it to straighten out. How exactly does your oversteer take place? And did you sense this effect on dry roads, or slick?*

Setup: OE Sport Package. The stock dampers already had about 40k on them, so they were pretty weak. With the rear bar installed, I often noticed a gradual oversteer as I accelerated into a turn/curve with decreasing radius. The steering feel was definitely more sensitive to the touch. You really have to push the car hard through a turn to notice the oversteer. Dick Shine himself often warns of this effect when people wants to buy his rear bar without using the SRS springs & Bilstein HDs.


----------



## OstTrefftWest (Sep 28, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Hi, Ceilidh! Hope I can contribute something moderately useful here....
For background, I am indeed driving a MkIV, with a 28mm Autotech hollow adjustable RSB -- set on full-stiff since I chewed up my "medium" endlinks in an automatic carwash (doh!). My springs and dampers are stock '03 GTI. My performance driving techniques are also thoroughly average.
Generally, my impressions of tail-happiness with the bar are much more like yours than Ian's. On dry roads, the LTO is merely entertaining (and reasonably progressive, at least for someone who's expecting it), and something to utilize to up the fun-factor. Basically, I can charge in at pretty high speeds, making my best efforts to trail-brake and be smooth, and have the car simply obey -- or I can do most of my braking before the turn, power in, lift the gas momentarily when my line starts to get wide, rotate the tail an extra few degrees to correct the line, and then power out. (Not exactly finesseful, but a darn good time by FWD standards.







)
I've only had the bar installed since mid-March, so I have no snow experience with it. However, based on my experiences with charging hard on low-speed offramps in the rain, I suspect that the handling would be disconcerting in the snow. On wet pavement, the understeer/oversteer transition on lift-throttle can be pretty abrupt. (To be fair, though, it's only made me nervous when I'm deliberately manhandling the car to _try_ to make it misbehave.) However, it's enough to make me think that snow/ice would be pretty nerveracking, at least on the stiff setting. (I'm not convinced it'd be unmanageable for someone who's expecting its behavior, but then I daily-drove a Miata through eight years of Indiana winters, six of them without snow tires!) 
For the record, during the first couple weeks when I had the bar set to medium, it felt much better-balanced. I could still exert some control over the rear end by backing off the gas (or nudging the brakes to shift a little weight forward), but it wasn't as melodramatic. Unfortunately, I only had it that way for a couple of weeks before the carwash "ate" those endlinks, and so I spent some of that time just learning the feel of the bar in general. There was also a substantial increase in ride harshness between medium and stiff -- enough to make me want to order a replacement pair of medium-setting endlinks. I'm probably pickier than most about the ride quality, though, since I have the Miata for outright handling, and I only expect the Dub to be a daily driver that "knows how to party" now and then.
Overall, my handling right now is entertaining, but certainly not finesseful or refined. Someone who didn't know its tendencies could certainly get themselves into trouble with this setup. On the other hand, it's fun for someone who knows its LTO tendencies -- and in some ways, I think it's a good training platform, because that slightly-excessive liveliness in back really encourages smoothness in cornering. (That's one reason I plan to leave it this way for awhile.)
If you have any more-specific issues you'd like me to experiment with, please let me know. I keep pretty busy during the week, but I could probably find the 30-45 minutes or so on the weekends to switch endlinks, etc.... Again, hope my little contribution of subjective data helps!


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (OstTrefftWest)*

Ceilidh, pyce, and Daemon42, I haven't gotten as much of a response in my other thread as I would have liked. My question is that given that the Neuspeed Sofsports are ~220 F/~160 R and a progressive spring (barely from what I understand) which shock should make the best companion for a "GT" to "Sport" suspension. I plan on utilizing the Neuspeed 28mm bar as well so that I can adjust oversteer/understeer characteristics.
Please bear in mind that expense is a factor here as well as spouse acceptance factor. I also want "some" visual enhancement that the SofSports offer over a Shine package. Thus, I recognize that the Shine is the best handling setup. However, ride comfort for the wife is a consideration. I already have and SVT Focus with Koni's and upgraded springs for my daily driver that handles much better than any Golf IV that I've seen.
Now, Bilstein should equal best handling due to its quicker response?
Koni should offer better comfort due to its slower response but similar damping rate as compared to the Bilsteins?
Is there any advantage to increasing the damping past a setup matched to the spring rate. If not, then would the Tokico HP's potentially be ideal because the compression seems to be around 20% than stock GTI and the rebound velocity looks to be 50%+ higher. Could this be the ideal GT setup? What are your thoughts? Or would the Konis or another shock like adjustable Tokico Illuminas be the answer?
Thanks and keep the good info coming.
PMB


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (4dBunny)*

You guys are bringing tears of joy to an old man! People are talking and thinking about suspension systems for FWD and how it actually works!
Look at where the roll center actually is on a torsion crank axle however.
I have been watching this and cant tell you how thrilled I am to see people paying attention. Many of the mysteries of why springs behave in an unexpected manner is because they arent the advertized rate at all!
I just replaced my old reliable tester with a digital loadcell unit and it tells me that most manufacturers are still lying to us. Keep up the discussion!
Daemon your observations are great.
Dick Shine


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (SRSVW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SRSVW* »_ 
Look at where the roll center actually is on a torsion crank axle however.
Dick Shine


Hello Dick,
Nice to have the expert stop by!








I've been going on the assumption that the roll center on a torsion-beam suspension is basically at the midpoint of the beam; on my car that point is about 8.5" above the tarmac. Is that not correct? Thanks very much!
- Ceilidh


----------



## SRSVW (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

The roll center with this type is basically at ground plane level,making the roll axis opposite of most RWD vehicles.This is a wonderful tuning aid in that it is the only point that stays put basically. Raising the rear causes more roll,and lowering it decreases the roll. You can actually observe this at most race tracks if you find a car with soft front springs and a stiff rear bar.
You can actually see it! Keep up the good work! I would like to meet all of you some day and buy you a beverage and chew the fat .Oh well maybe some day.
Dick Shine


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (SRSVW)*

Dick: That explains why you initially produced the 200lb rear spring, which was slightly shorter than the new 180lb rear setup. The spring rate was basically inconsequential, but the slightly low rear produced a less roll upon corner entry. I'll be testing that theory again shortly, since I will be reciving 200lb springs soon, only this time I"ll be focusing on roll. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
All: Where is the point of diminishing returns as it pertains to the lowered rear-end? When all things considered, when is grip comprimised in terms of oversteer/understeer induced from the weight transfer front to rear?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Rollin, rollin .....*

This is funny now, LOL







....... So, I am determine to finally find out what does really the ride height give for comfort (as had some issues with lowering the rear in the past) and spent my Sunday afternoon playing with my new toys (simple spacers) and just when discovered something quiet interesting, I login here to post about it and read Dick just in time talking about lowering the rear and roll ........ and spoiled my surprise. Dang!







But anyway, let me say it was very, very fruitful Sunday for me and I found exactly what I had been looking for, so we are (at least for my case) at the very end of this long search for the "ideal" GT rear spring height and rate. Here is what happened:
We did these very simple and stupid spacers for the rear and I used the shortest spring I have in the garage (which happen to be the 337 rear). Lucky enough, we also know the spring rate of that spring (it came around 140 lb, remember?) so I could finally have a "140" spring that seats stock height, so we could find out what it is to be this low rate (140) with such strong front (225). Well, without going to write for hours about this, I would just throw the conclusions, and then if eventually anyone have questions, we can go deeper in details....... So:
1. The ride height does not really affect comfort! Yes, I was the one who reported lower comfort with these same 337 rears, but this was long time ago and the reason were two: a) I had RSB then, semi-broken too and b) the 337 rears are stronger than the Stock 1 silver 3 green spring. That time I thought they are the same rate, therefore lowering resulted in having worse ride quality....... Right now, with 337 BUT on stock rear ride height, the comfort is exactly the same as when the 337 are lowered at their installed height! Same day, same car, same tires, weather, etc.... There might be some difference, but I could not notice it, so I could quiet safely conclude the ride height does not make noticeable difference in comfort (rear end talking).......
2. Lowering the rear REALLY reduces roll, lean and whatever you call all the rear end movements. To say it in plain English, lower the rear by one inch and it feels like some increment in spring rate in terms of turn in, rolling, leaning, etc. But at the same time, there is not reduction in comfort. It is really weird feeling, but it has to be tried to be believed. Now it all make sense when several pages back I was asking everyone here whether the shocks are linear and act the same way through their entire length, because when the car was lowered it felt like increasing the rebound on the rear. Yes, it feels like this now again! It is not dramatic change, but noticeable change. I would not dare to use percentages because can mislead, but it is noticeable....... So, before anyone calculate the whole thing for the rear and finds out mathematically why we should go lower, my butt says lower is worth few pounds spring rate and few percentage rebound gain, maintaining the same (or thereabout) comfort. Yes, Dick had been saying it and I guess it is not rocket science to prove it, but at least we tried to feel the difference and I am glad to say that the difference is not something you have to look hard for, it is noticeable and it is there as advertised...
So, this brings us very close to our hunting for the ideal (compromised) rear spring rate. Now, same car, same wheels, same day, I can say for sure the Stock rear is softer than the 337 rear spring! The spring tester showed similar numbers (if you remember) but when getting closer to installed height, the 337 was stronger than the Stock spring. It feels the same way on the road too. At least now we know one thing for sure (or pretty sure) that 140 lb rear spring is very close to where an ideal GT rear spring could be. The car is very comfortable, yet drives very well in the twisties. The lower you go on the rear (same spring) the less the car understeers! It is very clear difference, not something small and hard to feel. All this one 16" wheels too. Comfort is just great, but at the same time is hot like hell here too, so I hope it is not going to fool us on this one again.......
People say if you lower the front, you have to compensate with stiffer springs for the increased roll, etc....... well, I guess it is safe to say that it goes exactly the other way around for the rear - you have to increase the spring rate if you keep the stock ride height! Or perhaps you can afford to soften the spring if you decide to lower the ride, this gaining comfort without compromising handling. Sweet, no?







Yes, the car looks more Shined than ever, as the rear is the lowest it had ever been, but boy it rides nice and handles nice too (at least I am very pleased with the handling). I could never put those two in one sentence before...... 
At this point I guess out sweet spot would really be in the 140 and 150 lb. range. It also depends thought, how tall the spring would be. I was not so keen in lower rear springs, as I have this hinge for the bike rack and clearance is an issue some time, but after seeing what lowering gives, I do not mind scraping the driveway with the hinge some time. 140 lb is great if lowered a lot, like mine now. 150 lb would probably perform the same if it is less lowered. But I think for comfort with still some spirit left in the handling department - a lower 140-150 lb spring is the way to go! Ciao everybody


----------



## 3wheelinWolf (Mar 25, 2002)

*Re: Rollin, rollin ..... (pyce)*

So, for us hard-core, hard-butt guys, lower, stiffer springs would be really really good then in the back








This does raise one question however. You can't throw "lowering the car hurts handling" at every situation since lowering the rear improves performance, (could be the basis for the advertised improvements from spring manufacturers). Instead, how does one affect the other? If the roll center is viewed as a geometric shape, (upside-down triangle), there must be a proportion, front to back, that has to be maintained to minimize roll. I'm not sure I am making sense to anyone but myself here, so I'll try to ask in plain english. If lowering the front 1" moves the point of the roll center, sub surface to the ground, how many inches would the rear have to lowered to compensate? Or can compensation be had? I hope I'm not way off in my thought process...


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Rollin, rollin ..... (3wheelinWolf)*

There are some other factors to consider.
The rear end has some static negative camber. If you lower it so
the ends of the beam are above parallel, then that negative camber
turns into toe-in. Raise it up, and it turns into toe-out. 
Means that lowering the rear too far still isn't a good thing.
70% of the static weight of the car is on the front end, 90% or 
more under very hard braking on sticky tires. That's why
you can't just draw a simple geometric shape that
represents the combined front and rear roll center, but even if you
could, it'd be heavily biased toward the front, which is why
"lower is not better" is still generally true. 
ian


----------



## Maverick99 (Mar 23, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Great read and thanks for all the advice. After thoroughly going through this thread I have decided to purchase the Konis for my Eibach Pro-Kit springs. They are going to replace the Eibach dampers which I feel are underdamped and too soft on the initial impact. Although they are comfortable, it does not control body motion very well when going over dips and uneven pavement. The Eibach dampers seem to feel unbalanced when trying to control weight transfer front to rear. 
I know I know........I am going to hear lots of people telling me to swap my springs but I like the ride height even though there is more roll at the center. I just wanted to have a slightly stiffer ride while trying to control the weight transfer a little better. 
Anyhow, I have started a GB on the Koni if anyone is interested. 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1357338


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: Rollin, rollin ..... (Daemon42)*

Given what has been discussed above in regard to the roll center of the rear beam, does the roll center of the rear increase when one is braking into a corner? How would this effect the behavior of the car to oversteer or understeer under such conditions?
My thinking is that during such a situation, braking would transfer weight to the front of the car under braking creating some brake dive which would cuase the rear end to lift which would make the roll center of the rear worse as compared to a steady state cornering or accelerating out of a corner situation.
Also, if my poor explanation above is correct or even somewhat correct, how would a rear sway or stiffer srpings effect his behavior?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (3wheelinWolf)*

Hi all,
Just wanted to let you know all that I am back... haven't been following the posts that much lately since I was away and didn't have internet connection. Have to catch up with posts (not easy since they're pretty long), but will contribute shortly. This is getting more and more interesting. 
Cheers... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Hey, Alex, Welcome back! Try to read the whole thing and jump in please


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

So you now have:
- Shine front springs + Bilstein HDs
- Rear 337 springs + Konis + "cut" bumpstops?
- Shine rear bar?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Cadenza_7o)*

Not really








Shine 225 Front with Koni at about 50% stiff
337 Rear with Koni at about 25% stiff with cut buffers (I am sure they do not touch while driving daily)
No aftermarket bars (stock front and rear only) and 205-55-16 Touring tires.
It may seem repeating, but actually I never had this combo before in this specific configuration. When initially used the 337 rears, the fronts were on bilsteins and there was the Shine RSB. So, this time it is quiet different.
And love this combo! It is comfy, very comfy, yet the turn in is very sharp and nice. Understeers (of course) but not a lot. It is great for spirited driving, but of course, do not expect miracles on a track. I fully understand how all this doe snot make theoretical (and even practical maybe) sense, but I really find the "softer" (to certain extend, because it is not really soft) car gives me (personally) some advantages. I discovered that a "softer" combo like this gives me more confidence and the final result is faster cornering (on my end) but not because the car is more capable (but maybe it is to certain extend and on certain surfaces!) but because I feel more comfortable pushing a softer car than a "flatter" car. Basically, I find it more idiot-prove, forgiving and easy to drive faster (within limits, of course)....... Remember one very important part, this is not meant to be competition setup! I do not want to convey the wrong idea that this setup is the way to go for great results. It is probably what I would call the best compromise for myself, my requirement and style. It is absolutely obvious (as soon as you try you will find it out) that increasing the spring rates on the rear gives immediate positive results on the front. There is no rocket science here and some test have proven the theory...... the whole trick here is to find the compromise that will find the boundary of acceptable comfort on specific streets and stop there. Of course, the stronger the rear, the better turn in, but the worse comfort....... So, I would dare to think that the 337 rear, with it's 140 lb (or about there) spring rate is more or less my boundary for comfort, so in my case I stop here. The Shine 225 front is out of discussion as it is the best thing I ever had on the front, plus the given bonus that somehow works nice with almost any rear we tried. Yes, somebody would say that 225 and 140 are too far as number and would cause some problems in ride quality, etc...... but it is on my car and it works for me. I ma sure the Koni Yellow play good role in this thing too. I am also sure that if rebound set in a wrong way, this whole thing will result in horrible ride, but this is why we spent all this time here, to try to learn few things and use the knowledge in setting the things into better picture....... 
The next step is to try to convince few folks with different setups to come out one Sunday, we put some cones, design a small track specifically with some closing radius curves, change lane simulations, etc. and try all the setups on the same wheel tire, at same speeds, etc. I am talking to a pro cameramen who would some and film the whole even from specific points, so we can have parallel overlaid images as to see exactly how much every setup leans, rolls, understeers, slides and generally observe on slow motion the behavior of the different setups in similar conditions. Then only we will see where this setup I am having stands against some famous Cup Kits, Coilovers, etc....... I am confident in what I have because my butt says it is pretty quick on the daily crappy streets. Give me bad roads and I am sure this car will not lose against all of them, maybe some....


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
The next step is to try to convince few folks with different setups to come out one Sunday, we put some cones, design a small track specifically with some closing radius curves, change lane simulations, etc. and try all the setups on the same wheel tire, at same speeds, etc. I am talking to a pro cameramen who would some and film the whole even from specific points, so we can have parallel overlaid images as to see exactly how much every setup leans, rolls, understeers, slides and generally observe on slow motion the behavior of the different setups in similar conditions. Then only we will see where this setup I am having stands against some famous Cup Kits, Coilovers, etc....... I am confident in what I have because my butt says it is pretty quick on the daily crappy streets. Give me bad roads and I am sure this car will not lose against all of them, maybe some....

Sounds a little like what Dick was trying to setup last year, and earlier this year, but with quite a bit more subjectivity involved. Any plans on doing timed runs, with the same driver, on these different kits ... or is it too soon in the planning stages for those kinds of details?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*

Chris, I do not think it is early. The more we figure it out, the better! I understand what you are talking about, the chrono does not lie, BUT the problem is that all cars will be different, with different engines, mods, etc and this may help the numbers some..... Ideally (this is the dream, of course) we could find a shop to sponsor this event and the shop will perform all the suspension exchange on the same car! So, then we have the exact same car, on the same day, same driver, doing the same track..... only this way I believe the "time" will tell more accurately who's the winner and by how much. The problem is, I have to buy then 5-6 sets of springs and that would be more than 1,000 even if I get them used. I really do not feel like throwing this much cash. I ma sure Dick can do much better job in this, but the problem is nobody would take his challenge. We have better chances, as I know a lot of enthusiast here that would be willing to participate, but then our test is not going to be as pro as Dick's ...... so it is win-lose situation, but I rather do something instead of doing nothing, because otherwise all this so far will remain that - words on the internet. I would like to find how much of the theory can be reproduced in real life. I am absolutely open to suggestions, ideas, anything! Please, everybody else too, feel free to jump in, so together we create some sort of scenario, so we can test all these things and get comparable results too. We have to first agree what exactly we should be looking for, how would that be achieved, so later when we have the results, everyone would agree they are plausible and reliable, so we can take them once and forever for truth........ Ideas of how and what? Thanks!


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_... I discovered that a "softer" combo like this gives me more confidence and the final result is faster cornering (on my end) but not because the car is more capable (but maybe it is to certain extend and on certain surfaces!) but because I feel more comfortable pushing a softer car than a "flatter" car. Basically, I find it more idiot-prove, forgiving and easy to drive faster (within limits, of course).......

Disclaimer - My brain is extremely frazzled from work causing most of this thread to be fuzzy for my mind.
Just out of curiosity though, the more combinations you try the closer you are getting to your goals. Putting the comfy level aside and focusing strictly on handling, the more combos you try the better handling.
Getting to the point, with all of the experimented and learning going on, I'm just curious if your driving skills are improving? More specifically if your driving is improving could that be impacting/effecting your judgement on better handling?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (captainoblivious)*


_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_....Just out of curiosity though, the more combinations you try the closer you are getting to your goals. Putting the comfy level aside and focusing strictly on handling, the more combos you try the better handling.... 

Captain, I would not want to give the wrong idea here..... did not mean to say that the more I try to better they are. The last one is not the best! At least it may not be the best for you or anyone else. What I tried to send as a message (and I guess from your post that I failed) is that going softer on the rear (but not the softest!) I am actually discovering (strictly for myself!) that I am more comfortable on my own 70% with a softer (but not softest!) setup than with a more rigid one. This is completely personal, and think I tried to say few times that what I find good for me may not be any good for many of you. The whole picture I wanted to give was that (and having comfort always in mind!):
1. Shine 150 lb rear offered the best handling for the given comfort, and in fact on one of the pages I wrote that whole setup as my favorite, one that I would feel comfortable recommending to people..
2. H&R O.E. rear was good gain in comfort over the 150 lb Shine, but of course, it lost some in the handling department, and precisely, could be felt in turn-in. Both spring were good on 15" wheel, but had something to desire on 16". Also, both are not really that soft, therefore can not be run on small rebound, I had to go above 25% stiff and that also takes away some comfort...
3. The Stock spring, of course, the best comfort so far and the rebound can go down to 25%, even less but I did not want to. The car rolls more thought and the front is really not as good as with #2 and #1. I could absolutely live with it, but was looking if something can be improved slightly with of course some comfort maybe even lost (but I had plenty to trade). So, the 337 came back into game....
4. The 337 rear spring, that, mind you, does not make the car go like the #1, but it is very close to #2, I actually feel it is slightly, very slightly superior to #2, but it offers better comfort than #2, so I am back on the 16" tires.
So, here we are....all four rear springs are SOFT for many of you! And I have no aftermarket bar behind, so to many of you this is even worse. I am sure many think (in theory) this car should be absolute dog, rolling, under steering pig and you name it ....... but believe it or not, it is not all of that at all! Again, it is street performance we are talking about, not racing machines, track monsters, etc. So, after this recap, now directly to your question..... I am sorry if I sent the wrong message that the softer the better (for handling). It is not like that and neither I am experiencing it. I wish I had 10 springs and each of them is 10 lb more than the other, so I can try them one by one and then find the compromise and offer to someone else to go the same way and share what they think later, but I have only few springs and some of them I do not even know precisely the spring rate, so it is a lot of guessing here too. But at least we tried ..... and if the spring tests were right, then the Stock rear is really about 120-125 lb and the 337 rear is really about 140 lb, then I can tell that for my case (only!) compromise that I can live with on SF roads and 16" wheel is somewhere between 140 and 145 lb rear spring, that also has to be shorter than stock (about 1" lower than stock, BUT not more than that!). Again, this is not the best handling setup, by no means, it is the boundary for my level of comfort, which automatically gives some level of handling that I can live with, and not only can live with, but happy too, because it is not as low as people think...... 

_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_....Getting to the point, with all of the experimented and learning going on, I'm just curious if your driving skills are improving? More specifically if your driving is improving could that be impacting/effecting your judgement on better handling?

Very good point, yes, I do agree with you that it may be the case, I am learning the car and this make me dare more, etc..... But I would like to think of this in a slightly different way. I am not a racer, but would like to give example with the race cars world..... Formula One, one team, two drivers. Many times (from articles that I read) drivers share how they set up the car for given race. Many times I noticed how driver A sets his car (same car!) in a completely different way, some time totally opposite from driver B. Then both get in there and some crazy times that makes those two look to me like beings from different galaxies. Then sometime happens that driver A gets the other car for whatever reason and then comes back and comments: "I have no idea how the hell my team mate can drive that thing and do even the fastest lap!?"......... So, what this tells me, is that everyone of them has to setup his car in a way that makes HIM and ONLY HIM being comfortable to bring it to it's limits. On paper sounds wrong, in real life the guy goes in and drives the hack out of it........ So, back to our simple human being real world. I think what all these experiments really contributed to me is that they all helped me to find myself and find what do I really like the car to behave like. Before I was listening to people who had more experience and who said my car should be set like this and like that, so it is flat like this and goes like that...... now I just found what makes me (and only me!) feel more confident and what gives me opportunity to drive faster. Now, when I say faster, this means my own "faster" too. A guy with full Shine and skills can always blow my doors off.....a guy with complete stocker can blow my doors off, because he may be one of those natural talents that comes to earth every once in a while, and that is fine too. Many said here the biggest difference is between the steering wheel and the seat







I am just trying to understand how these things work and what gives what and then probably use the experience to at least tell people what not to do, so they can save some time and money. ....... Hope what I wrote make sense and hope I am not misleading with confused posts


----------



## SpoolT4 (Dec 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *captainoblivious* »_
Getting to the point, with all of the experimented and learning going on, I'm just curious if your driving skills are improving? More specifically if your driving is improving could that be impacting/effecting your judgement on better handling?

You also have to add in the fact *tires* used during the testing. Brakes as well.








I find that a stock MKIV with F1-GSD3 Good-Years tends to make anyone an Indy Driver. Add a Shine set-up to those tires and you have no contest.
Tires, you also must equate rubber.
SpoolT4


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_We have to first agree what exactly we should be looking for, how would that be achieved, so later when we have the results, everyone would agree they are plausible and reliable, so we can take them once and forever for truth........ Ideas of how and what? Thanks!

Lemme think a bit ... with no objectively measured results, I don't think we can get to:
- plausible and reliable
- take them for truth
It is possible to use the same driver.
It should be possible to get a couple of sets of wheels 4 x 100 and 5 x 100 with the same tires mounted on them.
It's possible to set up a slalom course.
It's possible to set up a skid pad circle.
Not possible to eliminate differences due to engine power.
Not possible to eliminate differences in chassis MKII vs II vs IV ... G vs J vs P.
It's going to be tough to achieve a set of reliable data points without sufficient control of the variables, but you are right - we can either do something, and take the results with caveats ... or do nothing.
I'll be sure to ping you if I have anything remotely resembling a flash of brilliance on this "event".
BTW ... continued thanks for taking the ball and running with this stuff. I know it's time consuming.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (f1forkvr6)*

Hey guys, 
Ok, I am still not 100% uptodate on the posts







they're WAY TOO LONG. But, I am going to do a tryout of Koni vs. Bilstein this coming week. Someone local is getting some Koni's installed on Prokit spring (I think) and we will be doing a back to back test to see how it handles/rides/leans, etc... Will report for sure. 
This is gonna be one of the last tries that I'll be doing. At this time, Sofsport+Koni, and KW V2 are the main contenders to go on my car. Will see what happens


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_
Without the bar, the car begins to roll and hints its lateral grip limitation relatively early. With the rear bar installed, lateral roll was decreased and I was able to take the esses/twisties faster. But there remains an *area between successive lateral weight transfers* where the bar is not under load. With stock dampers, the lateral weight shifts in this area is very sloppy. The higher rate Bilstein HDs _slow down_ the weight transfers. Of course, stiffer springs would help too but my NB sees bad roads on a daily basis. Squat and dive were also diminished dramatically. 


Hi folks!
I've been away from this thread for a while (it requires too much thinking, and work has been busy!), and now there's a back log of responses I owe people. Sorry for the delays.








First off, Cadenza: thanks for the info! Unless you correct me, I'll interpret your post as a confirmation that the increase in 1-wheel bump rate with a stiffer rear bar requires stronger damping to control it (it sounds like you're in effect 'bouncing' on the bar on roll at left-right transitions). At some point the increase in damping needed to control the roll will make the ride over-damped on 2-wheel bumps, but as you haven't complained of such, then the Autotech bar apparently hasn't reached that point.
Hence it sounds from your comments that a light rear bar on a stock suspension can make for improved handling with a decent ride, so long as the damping is improved as well.
Please correct me if I've misinterpreted you, and thanks again!
- Ceilidh


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (OstTrefftWest)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OstTrefftWest* »_Hi, Ceilidh! Hope I can contribute something moderately useful here....
For background, I am indeed driving a MkIV, with a 28mm Autotech hollow adjustable RSB -- set on full-stiff .....My springs and dampers are stock '03 GTI.....
Generally, my impressions of tail-happiness with the bar are much more like yours than Ian's. On dry roads, the LTO is merely entertaining (and reasonably progressive, at least for someone who's expecting it), and something to utilize to up the fun-factor. Basically, I can charge in at pretty high speeds, making my best efforts to trail-brake and be smooth, and have the car simply obey -- or I can do most of my braking before the turn, power in, lift the gas momentarily when my line starts to get wide, rotate the tail an extra few degrees to correct the line, and then power out. (Not exactly finesseful, but a darn good time by FWD standards.







)
I've only had the bar installed since mid-March, so I have no snow experience with it. However, based on my experiences with charging hard on low-speed offramps in the rain, I suspect that the handling would be disconcerting in the snow. On wet pavement, the understeer/oversteer transition on lift-throttle can be pretty abrupt. (To be fair, though, it's only made me nervous when I'm deliberately manhandling the car to _try_ to make it misbehave.) However, it's enough to make me think that snow/ice would be pretty nerveracking, at least on the stiff setting. (I'm not convinced it'd be unmanageable for someone who's expecting its behavior, but then I daily-drove a Miata through eight years of Indiana winters, six of them without snow tires!) 
For the record, during the first couple weeks when I had the bar set to medium, it felt much better-balanced. I could still exert some control over the rear end by backing off the gas (or nudging the brakes to shift a little weight forward), but it wasn't as melodramatic. .......There was also a substantial increase in ride harshness between medium and stiff -- enough to make me want to order a replacement pair of medium-setting endlinks. ......
Overall, my handling right now is entertaining, but certainly not finesseful or refined. Someone who didn't know its tendencies could certainly get themselves into trouble with this setup. On the other hand, it's fun for someone who knows its LTO tendencies -- and in some ways, I think it's a good training platform, because that slightly-excessive liveliness in back really encourages smoothness in cornering. (That's one reason I plan to leave it this way for awhile.)
If you have any more-specific issues you'd like me to experiment with, please let me know. I keep pretty busy during the week, but I could probably find the 30-45 minutes or so on the weekends to switch endlinks, etc.... Again, hope my little contribution of subjective data helps!

Next...
OstTrefftWest,
Thank you for you detailed and helpful comments! Can I assume the hollow Autotech 28 mm bar is something akin to a solid 25 mm bar in stiffness? That is, can we still refer to it as a "light" rear bar?
Your comments, along with Cadenza's, make it clear that a rear bar on stock springs can really cut the understeer (I assume your car is still basically an understeerer, but that you can much more easily force it into an oversteering stance with the right driving techniques). I'm having a little trouble reconciling your experiences with what Peter seemed to find with a friend's Jetta Wagon w/rear bar, which I think he found to still roll and understeer a fair bit. Hmmm.
Peter and OstTrefft, if you're both reading along: maybe the resolution lies in comparing your two driving styles? Peter has a pretty smooth driving technique, whereas OstTrefft seems to be using more fore&aft weight transfer. In the latter case, OstTrefft might be doing a lot of his rotation with all 4 wheels still firmly on the ground, which is where the rear-bar car is most rear-biased compared to the stock car. In contrast, Peter, if you're smoothly rolling into higher speed corners and holding it as the g-forces build, perhaps you're getting into 3-wheeling mode, which is where the rear-bar car starts to become similar to pure stock? Anyway, just a conjecture...








Regardless, OstTrefft, thank you for the clarification about ride quality -- it's very interesting (and a very welcome confirmation!) that stiffening the rear bar can make the ride comfort go south. Once again it sounds like a light bar is within the acceptable range, but that going too stiff has a penalty (here, in terms of ride quality).
As for additional experiments, Thank you very much! Alas, the most helpful experiment would be for you and Peter to somehow get together and try out each other's cars -- but somehow I think the Rocky Mountains might be in the way for that to happen....
At the moment, the big question in my own mind is how does a light-bar setup compare to Peter's Shine-front experiment? Nobody who has posted has been able to really try out both (the Jetta wagon might count, but then again it might not). What would be really nice would be to learn how those two setups compare in terms of ride comfort, handling precision, understeer, forgiveness, and general fun (both mods cost about the same amount, and it'd be nice to be able to tell people their relative pros and cons).
From the posts to date, I would guess that Peter's Shine front setup would be more forgiving, with better ultimate roadholding, while your (and Cadenza's) rear bar would be more fun/ entertaining -- but it'd be nice to have a confirmation. And a really big question is which one actually rides better. The expectation is that your rear-bar setup should be more comfortable, but even that's not a priori certain, given how soft the stock front springs are to start with, and how stiff is the stock rear. Plus there's the separate issue of front end dive and real-world turn-in under trail-braking -- your rear-bar setup is inherently "looser", but it could be that Peter's reduced brake dive and front-end sloppiness might make for an equally improved turn in.
Anyway, those are the things I'm wondering about -- let's keep the dialogue going, and thanks again for your post!
- C


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (SRSVW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SRSVW* »_The roll center with this type is basically at ground plane level,making the roll axis opposite of most RWD vehicles.This is a wonderful tuning aid in that it is the only point that stays put basically. Raising the rear causes more roll,and lowering it decreases the roll. You can actually observe this at most race tracks if you find a car with soft front springs and a stiff rear bar.
You can actually see it! Keep up the good work! I would like to meet all of you some day and buy you a beverage and chew the fat .Oh well maybe some day.
Dick Shine
















And now for Dick Shine,
Mr. Shine, thank you very much for the correction! I made the roll-center-at-height-of-rear-twist-beam assumption out of sheer intellectual sloppiness: the only reference I could find for twist-beam roll centers was in Milliken & Milliken, where they have a diagram showing the roll axis passing through the center of the twist beam. Being lazy, I just took the diagram without thinking about it -- but it turns out the diagram's mislabeled, and had I thought about it I would have (and I should have -- it was pretty obvious in hindsight) realized that the thing labeled "roll axis" was actually the instantaneous wheel center, not the roll axis. (They even said so in the text; I just didn't bother to read it...)
Anyway, you are of course absolutely right! -- yes, it's about 1/2" above ground level, or something like that, right? And dropping the rear by 2" actually raises it by something like 1/4"? (These numbers might be off -- I'm just eyeballing it.)
In any case, Peter, this changes some of the things I was suggesting for your experiments, which I'll correct anon. Thanks again to the two of you for pointing out my error!
- W (C)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Rollin, rollin ..... (3wheelinWolf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *3wheelinWolf* »_So, for us hard-core, hard-butt guys, lower, stiffer springs would be really really good then in the back








This does raise one question however. You can't throw "lowering the car hurts handling" at every situation since lowering the rear improves performance, (could be the basis for the advertised improvements from spring manufacturers). Instead, how does one affect the other? If the roll center is viewed as a geometric shape, (upside-down triangle), there must be a proportion, front to back, that has to be maintained to minimize roll. I'm not sure I am making sense to anyone but myself here, so I'll try to ask in plain english. If lowering the front 1" moves the point of the roll center, sub surface to the ground, how many inches would the rear have to lowered to compensate? Or can compensation be had? I hope I'm not way off in my thought process... 

Still working my way through the post backlog...








Hi Wolf!
The thing that determines roll is the "roll axis", which is the line that connects the front roll center to the rear roll center. How far the CG (center of gravity) lies above this line (or more exactly, in a direction orthogonal to the axis) determines the tendency to roll.
In a car with 50:50 weight distribution, it's easy to relate changes in the front to changes in the back. The CG is sitting halfway between the front roll center and the rear roll center, and the height of the roll axis there is just the average of the front and rear roll center heights. Thus in a 50:50 car, if you lower the front roll center by an inch, and raise the rear by an inch, the height of the roll axis at the CG location basically stays the same. Or, if you raise the front center by and inch, and leave the rear alone, then the roll axis at the CG location rises by half an inch, etc.
Things get just slightly more complicated when the weight distribution isn't 50:50, as the CG no longer sits at the halfway point between the front and rear tires. If we go to a 67/33 F/R distribution (kind of nose heavy, but a convenient 2:1 proportion), then the CG is sitting 1/3 of the way behind the front wheels, and 2/3 of the way ahead of the rear wheels. With this geometry, if we raise the front by 1" and leave the rear alone, the roll axis at the appropriate spot will rise by 2/3". Conversely, if we raise the rear by leave the front alone, then the part of the roll axis below the CG will rise by 1/3". Thus in a 67:33 car, 1" at the front roll center is worth 2" at the rear. Or to put it another way, if you drop the front roll center by 1", you have to raise the rear center by 2" to compensate.
The CG acts in the same way. In a 50:50 car, lowering the front (or rear) by 1" will drop the CG by 1/2". In a 67:33 car, a 1" lowered front will drop the CG by 2/3", while 1" of rear lowering will drop it by 1/3". 
Ok, now to your question: assume the rear roll center doesn't move with lowering, and assume a 67:33 F:R weight distribution. Let's say you drop the front by 1", and let's say that that 1" drop causes the roll center to drop by 2" (no idea how much it actually drops; this is just an example). How much do you have to drop the rear to compensate, such that the rolling moment stays constant?
1) When you lower the front by 1", the CG drops by 2/3".
2) Similarly, when you lower the front roll center by 2", you've dropped the roll axis at the CG location by 2/3 * 2" = 4/3" = 1 1/3".
3) Thus the CG is now 4/3" - 2/3" = 2/3" farther away from the roll axis than it was before, and the car wants to roll more.
4) To compensate, you have to drop the rear enough so that the CG drops an additional 2/3".
5) Well, if you lower the rear by 1", the CG drops by 1/3". Thus to drop the CG by 2/3", you have to lower the rear by 2".
Bottom line: for the example car given above, lowering the car by 1" in the front and by 2" in the back will yield the same amount of roll as in the stock car.
Of course, everything hinges on how much the roll center actually drops with 1" of lowering in the front. If it actually drops 3" instead of 2", for example, you'll have to lower the rear by 4" to compensate. That's why it'll be so interesting when Peter completes his model -- we'll actually be able to answer these questions for real!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Rollin, rollin ..... (RichB)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RichB* »_Given what has been discussed above in regard to the roll center of the rear beam, does the roll center of the rear increase when one is braking into a corner? How would this effect the behavior of the car to oversteer or understeer under such conditions?
My thinking is that during such a situation, braking would transfer weight to the front of the car under braking creating some brake dive which would cuase the rear end to lift which would make the roll center of the rear worse as compared to a steady state cornering or accelerating out of a corner situation.
Also, if my poor explanation above is correct or even somewhat correct, how would a rear sway or stiffer srpings effect his behavior?

Almost caught up....
RichB -- I was in error before when I placed the rear roll center at the height of the twist beam; it's actually very close to the ground (my bad -- I got lazy and misread a diagram instead of working it out for myself). So whilst your reasoning is correct, in fact it doesn't happen on our cars; if anything, it kind of looks like the rear roll center drops (not rises) a trivial amount if you raise the rear end, so if anything that's a stabilizing effect.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
Just wanted you to know -- I've made my appointment with Shine(!); a week from Monday, I'll have the same setup as you (or, at least, one of your recent setups: Shine 225lb front, stock rears, Koni Yellows all around), so at last we'll be able to directly compare notes and calibrate our various impressions with one another's.
Now, if only we can get one of us into a Koni Yellow / Stock Spring / 25mm/28mm rear bar Jetta sedan or Golf/GTI, we'll finally be able to directly compare all these different setups in terms of handling, roadholding, and ride comfort. (And won't that be nice!)
As a preview, these are the things I'll be looking out for on my drive back from Walpole MA:
1) Is the understeer better or worse than my current stock GTI/ Koni setup? Does the difference (in either direction) vary with how hard I push the car?
2) How much firmer is the ride overall? Does the front feel uncomfortably firmer than the rear?
3) Is pitching a problem on our frost-heaved New England roads (a longstanding concern I've had with stiff front/ soft rear setups)?
4) How much noisier are bangs and sharp bumps?
5) What are the optimal front damper settings for my own tastes and road conditions?
6) What happens to steering feel and turn-in precision?
As you know (boy, do you know! I'm just mentioning it for anyone new tuning in) most people would predict horrible understeer with this setup (particularly as I won't have a rear bar). Me, I just don't know: there will be more weight transfer at the front (leading to more understeer) but less overall roll and thus less adverse camber and camber thrust at the front, which will reduce the understeer. It will certainly understeer more than a track car, and far more than the good folks at Shine intended when they specced this front spring, but if it turns out to be a moderately-understeering street setup with better handling feel, roadholding, and turn-in than stock, I'll be quite happy with it.
The part I'm really looking forward to is seeing what the overall feel is like. In my RWD experience, heavy front bars and stiff dampers can make a car feel a little weird, disjointed, and anestheticized (and once again, we don't use heavy rear bars at all), but stiff springs with moderate damping leads to an alert, "alive" steering & handling feel that is much more fun to drive around. Will this tendency transfer to a front-heavy FWD car? I don't know -- and I'm looking forward to finding out.
The pitching is another big question mark. In going 50% (150lb to 225lb) up in front spring rate, I'll be raising the front ride frequency (bounces per second) by 22%. If the Golf is set up like most production cars, the rear ride frequency is probably about 10-15% higher than the front in stock form, specifically to counteract pitching motions. With the stiff Shine front/stock rear, I'll have a front ride frequency a bit higher than the rear --- and that is usually very bad for pitching. You (Peter) haven't experienced any problems as yet, which might arise from any combination of 3 reasons:
1) the rear frequency is higher than I thought (presumably for load carrying purposes)
2) the Konis damp out the overshoot so effectively that pitch-cancellation via spring rate tuning is irrelevant (as explained in an earlier post, all this is moot if the springs are damped out in a single up & down cycle).
3) your California Bay Area roads (which sound like macro-scale flat concrete criss crossed by ridiculous cracks, craters, and ridges) don't excite pitching motion -- in possible marked contrast to our frost-heaved undulating New England roads, which sometimes feel like a linked series of railroad-track crossings.
Reasons #1 and/or 2 would be great; it's reason #3 that has me wondering.
Anyway, it'll be a week and a half before I get even an inkling -- but it'll be nice to finally know! (Now, if we can just get OstTrefftWest to take a driving holiday to northern California....







)
Cheers!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Hi Peter, Winston, and others
I will be conducting a test today comparing Bilstein+Neuspeed Sport with Eibach + Koni setup. This is to first see the difference between Koni and Bilstein "first hand" and see how the springs work with those shocks in general. Will report when it's done. We're trying to find an empty parking lot to do some more spirited driving.
Winston, I am looking forward to your impressions about the new setup (like Peter) and to see if his findings are similaro to yours. Just to let u know, I am almost 75% sure about my next setup which is gonna be Sofsport+Koni. 
Cheers,
Alex


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (alexb75)*

Hi Alex!
Nice to hear from you! Did your semester go well? Looking forward to your results, and hope you have a less frantic summer!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Stepping Back: The Theory We Have Thus Far (Ceilidh)*

Ok, I finally tested Konis







Here's the report.
First of all, unfortunately we were not able to do a proper test since we could not find an empty parking lot. Mostly we tested for comfort and subjective handling on the street. 
_His setup_: 
Eibach Prokit + Koni Sport + ABD front/rear swaybar + front/rear tie bars + 18 inch wheels + AVS ES100 Tires + shortened bumpstops
_My setup:_:
Neuspeed Sport + Bilstein Sport + 17 inch Pirelli Pzero tires.
The drop of the cars were very similar, I would say front was almost the same drop and my rear was a little bit lower (we did not do a proper measurement since we were not prepared). 
*Comfort*
First off, I was a little disappointed to see that ride was not MUCH different than Bilstein. His Konis' were set (initially) to 5/8 stiffnees all around. At that setting I could say that my Bilstein was fairly similar in ride quality. Both cars picked most road joints on the same stretch of road and went over bumps fairly similarly, with some difference that I'll explain later. 
We also tried half-stiffness which was a little better but not much different. It should be noted that he was riding on 18inch wheels which makes a big difference on the ride quality, so I bet the same setup with 16 or 17 would be much nicer riding. 
Then we changed the front to softest, and OH BOY, what a difference!!! The car totally changed (front) and we couldn't feel the asphalt joints anymore upfront, felt much more like stock but with more control. The rear we couldn't change and we both agreed that 5/8 stiffness for his springs was too stiff. 
BTW, his fronts only turned 1.5 turns?!







I thought it's supposed to be 2 turns (Peter)?! 
Now, here's the interesting part. We found a stretch of really bumpy road with continuous small bumps. We went over that road with both cars at the same speed. Initially my car is actually better (could be his wheels, swaybars) but then after a while on one of the last few bumps by car jacks pretty badly!!! It's jacking like crazy... it starts to go up and down without any sort of rebound and the car is NOT planted anymore!







The way to describe it is that the compressed shocks do NOT rebound fast enough or properly to stay on the road. The car jumps up and falls down on the pavement like there's no movement in the suspension (rear mostly)! Bascially the tires do NOT follow the bumps on the road anymore. This was the BIGGEST difference we found between the two. 
_Winston, Peter:_ Can any of you explain this to me? Is this springs, shocks, the combo not matched, longer bumpstops? Please let me know since this is THE point to make me switch. 
Best way to describe the ride of the two is that his car was a little more civil than mine, and mine was jerkier than his. Overall, I would rate his car's comfort as 6/10 and mine 5/10 (only because of jacking) if stock comfort was 10/10. Not a huge difference but would love to test it with softer rears. 
*Handling*
We didn't do very extensive handling test (busy roads on a Friday). Handling was good, but not exceptional! I have to say that I liked my suspension better in terms of handling, specially if I added a rear swaybar. 
The turn-in was NOTICEABLY slower on Konis/Eibach. When you turned the wheel the Bilstein/Neuspeed definitely reacts MUCH FASTER than Eibach/Koni set at both 4/8 and 5/8 stiffnees. Now, I am not sure if it's springs, shocks, wheels/tires or the combo that contributed to that. 
His car was more flat through corners than mine, because of probably swaybars and tie-bars. There was still understeer, but less than mine. But in an emergency lane change the car was NOT as fast as mine and because of that I am not sure which one would have done better in a slalom.
The car handles well, he (maverick99) mentioned that it was a HUGE improvement over Eibach Prokit shocks that he had earlier. 
I would say that handling on his car was about 6/10 and mine 5/10 and mine with rear swaybar would be 7/10... if stock handling is 3/10.
So, overall, if I did not have the jacking problem, I would NOT change the shocks







. I just didn't see much of a difference in the ride comfort (apart from jacking) to wanna make me change and the handling on Bilstein is better. 

PS. Oh, BTW, he beat me on the straight line







he's chipped! 


_Modified by alexb75 at 2:12 PM 5-16-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (initial)*

Hi Everyone,
Just a rushed note: as per Peter (Pyce)'s instructions, I've had Shine front springs installed on my 2000 GTI 1.8T (which has Koni Yellows, but is otherwise stock). Roads have been wet and I haven't had a chance to drive hard on real corners, but here's a surprise on ride quality:
At least on smooth highways (I-95 and Route 2 near Boston) and at low speeds (30 mph) on patched & frost-heaved Boston streets, the ride quality is not a whole lot worse than when I had stock springs + Konis. In fact, much of the time I don't feel much of a difference, ride-comfort-wise. Things might change when I hit sharper bumps (there was one big pothole (on Belmont hill, for those who know the area) that caused one heck of a loud BANG -- but that's been the only one so far), but for now it's been a big and pleasant surprise.
There's a little bit of pitching, noticeable on the highway (Peter, I think the "out of synch" feeling you had before you got the shocks dialed in comes, at least in part, from a rapid, small pitching motion from having stiff fronts mated to soft rears), and next week I'll see whether I can curtail that a bit via front damping (I'm on 3/8 - 1/2 turn at the moment; 3/8 is what felt best on the stock front springs...). It might be that the main ride penalty with Peter's "Frankenstein" setup (Shine fronts, soft rears) comes from having to stiffen the front damping enough to get rid of the pitching (the "jiggling bounce" referred to months ago) -- but I won't know until I have a chance to try it out.
Oh -- I should have mentioned at the outset: we measured the springs on Dick Shine's new digital spring tester, and my Stock fronts came out to 148 lb/in, whilst the new Shine fronts were 257 lb/in (Dick measured every 1/4 inch, and both springs essentially came out dead linear through a 3.5 - 4 inch stroke). In other words, I've increased the front spring rate by 73.6%, which corresponds to a ride rate increase (cycles per second) of 31.8%. That's a huge increase -- and yet the ride quality hasn't changed very much at all (at least on the above-mentioned roads).
It's often been stated that shocks have a bigger effect on ride quality than do springs -- I'm starting to become a believer.
Those of you with good memories will recall that when I installed the Konis on my stock GTI, I took a hit on the ride quality, and it took me quite a while to find a damper setting that felt comfortable. Well, the ride degradation going from 148 lb/in stock fronts to 257 lb/in Shine fronts has (thus far) been much, much less than the change in going from stock shocks to the Konis: as mentioned above, on many streets I don't really even notice the change with the Shines, whereas before (on the stock springs) I was always very conscious of how much "busier" the ride was with the Konis vs. stock shocks.
Again, big caveat -- I haven't tried highway speeds on bad roads; maybe it'll be much different then!
In any case, if Peter's experience with Bilsteins vs. Konis hold true, and if my experience with spring rate holds true, then all those people who got rid of their Shine kits and SofSport kits because of "too-rough ride" might have acted a bit too drastically. Both those kits normally come with Bilsteins, and the full Shine kit (with 180 lb/in rears plus a rear bar) has a lot of stiffness at the back. Going soft at the back and using Konis (at the front and back) can apparently make for a very comfortable ride....
As for handling, I'm understeering a lot, but in some ways it's less than stock, in some ways it's, well, not more, but different from stock. But I need to get on some real twisties before I can say anything. Hopefully next week I'll get out of town to see what it's like -- report coming then, as soon as I have info.
Cheers everyone!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (Ceilidh)*

Good experience Winston. I also ordered some Koni's today and I will 99% mate them with Sofsports. I really wish I had the money to first try Koni's on Neuspeed sport and then change springs and see the difference, but cannot afford to do that







That would have been the ultimate test. 
Will report hopefully next week when I have everything.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (Ceilidh)*

Great! It would be nice for you to put some miles on it and take it here and there, on dry roads too, so we can talk later in dept about where your findings are different than mine...... The nice part is that in general you are seeing things that I had been talking about but few (if any) believed. Like for the ride comfort and the understeering. You can now see for yourself that the car does not have "massive" understeering as some theories would imply. You are seeing the car to have a lot of understeering (in some situations more and in some less than stock), but I also do believe this has a lot to do with our maybe different driving styles. You can not drive this car like a go-cart and if you try, then yeah, it will understeer, but it will do so even if you have stiffer springs on the rear. I suspect that you are "testing" this new setup in a more aggressive way as to discover more about it and that perhaps is showing more understeer than what you expect, but it is maybe because you do expect a lo more than what is it







It is not a MINI and it will never be. You have to be as smooth as you can to get the best results. To me (personally) it is GOOD improvement over stock on very sharp turns, slow motion, city spirited driving style ..... and it is GREAT improvement on fast and long curves, like on and off-ramps. We have a NB that we keep complete stocker and drive it very often on the same roads to make comparisons, etc..... They both have 16" wheels and the exact same tires and I have to yet find a situation in which the Bug to outperform the mismatched Jetta (I am talking speed through corners, turn in, braking in corner, etc)...Now, this said, I would like to remind you that I am on stiffer than stock rears (the 337 that came at about 140 lb) versus your rears that may be not more than 120 lb. Also, I do drive a Jetta that yes is heavier than your GTI, but if you remember we weighted it somewhere in the beginning of this topic and the weight distribution came ot be about 59:41 and I guess that yours would be different, with more weight (percentage wise) on the front than mine. So, these few small details may actually do little trick and make my car just enough less understeering than yours. Now we know you have 257 lb Fronts and let's say 120 lb rear (I write 120 because this is what my Jetta stock rear came out about and I do know that the stock Jetta spring is stronger than the Golf, but you have GTI so we do not really know, but let's assume for now) ..... So, you are 257 - 120 and who knows, maybe I am real 225 and 140 , plus the weight distribution difference and plus the fact that my rear is so low (my colleagues ask me why do I drive around with full trunk all the time







). plus our stock sway bars are slightly different (if I am not wrong)....... and here we are, not having the exact same setups....... Also, I absolutely can not drive mine with less than 50% rebound on the front as the spring is way too strong to be driven with less than 50% (again, this is just me). I tried and tried, and nothing to do there, even if I go at 40% - the car moves up and down a lot, it is like rental Buick Sofa. If the road is smooth, then yes it is very nice and comfy, but I do not have many roads lie this here, so I keep it above 50% all the time (now is hot here, so they got softer, so I drive it at 60% front)...... So, it will be very interesting to see how do you feel when you go to 50% or above. to me it is not less comfy, it is just different, higher frequency, but less travel, so I personally can stand it more, beside the steering feel and few other things feel much better, you feel more in control and the car feel more like a gulf around your hand........ Also, I do think that your rear rebound is too low too, if we talk about handling. I know it is pain to take them out and play, but if you ever decide to perform some experiments, would be nice to put the rears at about 40-50% and the fronts in between 50-75% and then your turn in should be very noticeably improved. The whole car just feels great at those settings...... But great so far! Thanks for taking the challenge, I do trust your words very much. It is fantastic that you got similar setup, so now we can compare more like apples to apples and I hope that we will discover even more ion the near future, so to perhaps try to define an interesting selection of spring rates for few flavors of a possible GT setup. Keep updating us on your findings, please! this topic is back to life now and it may get even more interesting later as I feel someone else is going to switch soon to different shocks and springs, so we will have even more info (hope confirmation) on what we managed ot find out till today







....... Good night...... Fantasia Barrano is the new American Idol as we speak, Congrats to her too










_Modified by pyce at 11:00 PM 5-26-2004_


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (pyce)*

Peter, Winston, Alex, and others, good to see that this thread is still alive. I have some interesting observations to add as I am going down this same path, but using a slightly different approach. As you have read, I recently installed my suspension choices on my '03 GTi 1.8T. To refresh everyone's recollection, I installed a set of Neuspeed Golf IV VR6 Sofsports on my 1.8T. The front was lowered about 3/8" and the rear was lowered about 5/8" The front lowering appears to have resulted from the removal of the aluminum spacers in the front suspension.
Assuming the Neuspeed rates are reasonably correct, I have 220F and 160R for my rates and very nearly stock ride height. Winston and Peter, these rates should fall roughly in between the rates you guys have if I recall correctly.
I used Tokico HP's because I didn't want the expense or the hassle of adjusting the Koni's on the GTi. I like my Koni yellows on my SVT, but they are externally adjustable front and rear.
The results of my choices do not appear to be far afield of what I expected from your research and the research that I conducted before choosing this particular setup. I did not want to lower the front much and did want to eliminate some of the ridiculous wheel gap in the rear with the stock 17" Long Beach's on my car. That has been accomplished and I no longer wish for the 16" wheels.
As for performance, the HP's are very firm on rebound and significantly firmer than the stock dampers on compression. However, as expected from the low-pressure design, this firmness is not harsh except on large bumps. Comfort is very good. In addition, I am not experiencing any of the "pitching" detailed by Winston. Winston, I might suggest that you get a set of Jetta SofSports to correct your problem.
In addition, the car is much more neutral. Preliminary testing on a wet parking lot shows that the car still understeers, but not nearly as much as stock and not nearly as much as I expected. Cornering is very flat and the weight shift is very predictable and slow to occur. There is none of the stock "float" and hesitation before taking a set. Initial turn-in appears to be excellent.
I am current running ~38psi F and ~36psi R on 225/45/17 stock Michelins which are pretty harsh tires-- especially for their amount of grip. The good news is that even at these higher pressures, the ride is not overly harsh and is very similar to my Focus SVT with the Koni damper/Steeda spring combo. That is a very good thing http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
My only concern is the overall longevity of the HP's but the damping rates looked to be about perfect for the SofSports, and it appears that they are. Also, I wanted to "take one for the team" since no one else seems to be experimenting with anything other than the Bilstein's or the Koni's.
I am still toying with the idea of replacing both the F and R anti-sway bars with a Neuspeed 25mm F and a 28mm R. I just replaced the stock 21mm rear bar on my SVT with a 28.6mm bar from Steeda, and I am very pleased with the results in conjunction with my stock 22mm F bar. My experience with that install is that it significantly firmed up the rear, almost as if I had increased the spring rate by about another 30% (similar to the increased rate of my springs on the Focus). Surprisingly, it made no real difference in comfort, and, instead, improved comfort as it all but eliminated the pitching that I was experiencing on that car. I am hopeful that I might get similar results by replacing both bars on the GTi but ensuring that the rear bar is significantly larger and stiffer than the front.
I hope this is helpful information and moves the research along. I am very pleased with the results so far.
Just as an add, I also installed the Eurosport cat-back exhaust at the same time, and it is pretty impressive. Tone is deep, but not loud, and it appears pretty much stock in appearance unless you look really close. I can definitely feel a slight increase in power and responsiveness of the engine as well. I highly recommend this. I will also be installing the high flow cat and slip piped to have a full 2.5" system shortly.
PMB


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*

Hi 4d, a few Qs:
- Why did u choose VR6 springs as opposed to 1.8T springs?
- How does the ride look, is it front raked, rear-raked? Any pics?
- Is your Tokico's adjustable? If so, at what setting do u have them on?
On a side note, I was at Total Auto Sport (a Rally tuner shop, very successful in Canada). They told me that stiffer springs/shocks are NOT as good in the rain as softer ones... so their experience (mostly with WRX) has been that stiffer springs/shocks resulted in longer track times on WRX in the rain?! Very interesting.








Also, their main rally driver showed me some tricks to slide the rear and I can COMPLETELY get rid of understeer on my car and make the rear turn very easily! It was amazing, I can make the car oversteer like crazy if I wanted... just another thing to show that the MOST important thing for handling is THE DRIVER... if you spend thousands of dollars on your suspension but don't know how to drive... it's actually a waste of money, you need to spend some on a driving school as well, the money spent will make ALL YOUR current and future cars handle better







. I bet Micheal Shumacher on a stock Golf CL... can beat us ALL with every suspension mod possible.


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (alexb75)*

I chose the VR6 springs b/c according to Neuspeed I should expect only about a 1/4" drop on a 1.8T in the Front and about 1/2" in the Rear. Neuspeed's estimates were pretty close.
I really do think the VR6 SofSports are the way to go for those of us with 1.8T's who don't want to go to full Shine.
The Tokico's are the non-adjustable HP's. I didn't want the hassle of the way that Koni's adjust on MkIV's. I seriously though about Bilstein HD's or KYB AGX's (if I were to get adjustables) but went with the HP's due to price ($300), damping specs, and the desire to experiment.
I can always upgrade to Bilsteins later if I need to, but I don't expect to need to with such a small reduction in ride height.
The good news is that the difference is really that 0.5" front to rear rake has been mostly eliminated. It looks a lot better than stock IMO. Funny, how much of an appearance difference that small amount makes. I think that the better appearance is largely an artifact of having the 17" wheels as I like the OEM ride height on the 16" mesh wheels for the VR6 GTI's.
BTW, I forgot to mention that I trimmed the rear secondary springs (read "bumpstops") by 0.5" when the install was done.
PMB


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_I chose the VR6 springs b/c according to Neuspeed I should expect only about a 1/4" drop on a 1.8T in the Front and about 1/2" in the Rear. Neuspeed's estimates were pretty close.


Were your springs black and red for front/rear? 

_Quote »_
I really do think the VR6 SofSports are the way to go for those of us with 1.8T's who don't want to go to full Shine.


What do u mean by this?


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (alexb75)*

Surprisingly, both F and R springs were red. I called Neuspeed to make sure that I had received the right parts!
What I mean by the Full Shine comment is that this springset seems to offer a lot of performance without sacrificing much in the way of comfort. Obviously, a full Shine setup offers better performance.
PMB


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_I chose the VR6 springs b/c according to Neuspeed I should expect only about a 1/4" drop on a 1.8T in the Front and about 1/2" in the Rear. Neuspeed's estimates were pretty close.


BTW [email protected] told me that the springs in the Sofsport MKIV line (VR6/1.8T/2.0/TDI) have identical free lengths and spring rates at 220F/160R. They just have slightly different ride heights when installed because of the different motor weights. My VR6 sits about 1/4"-1/2" lower than your 1.8T in the front.
The VR6 Sport & Race springs are a little longer than other Sport & Race springs since the VR6 would sit unacceptably low on the 4-cylinder springs with those setups.


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (phatvw)*

That's good to know. That does seem odd though, since Neuspeed has set of SofSports for the 1.8T that are supposed to be 0.5" F and 0.5" R; instead of the 0.25" F and 0.50" R that my car was supposed to spec at given that I purchased the part numbers for the Golf IV VR6 and I have a 1.8T.
Doesn't really matter to me as I am very happy with the results. Now that I have had a chance to let the springs seat properly (read "settle"), I'll take measurements again and provide final drop numbers.
PMB


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*

Final numbers:
Before- 27" F and 27 1/2" R
After- 26 3/8" F and 26 and 1/2" R
Total Lowering:
F 5/8" and R 1"
Obviously, this has some detrimental effects on handling, but handling is way better than stock








Given that amount of lowering, I will probably upgrade both bars at some point in the future. I am very pleased with the appearance and performance of this setup. Although, I know that if I ever get my wife another car, the full Shine setup is the only thing that will satisfy me.
PMB


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*

This is great, PMB! Thanks for posting the info!
One thing: when you have a chance, could you please post a measurement from wheel center to fender lip? That way be can compare ride heights without worrying about tire compression/ aspect ratio/ etc. Thanks again, and congrats on your new suspension!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Midterm Review*

Hello Folks!
About a week ago I went over to Dick Shine's shop to have Shine 225 lb/in front springs installed in my GTI 1/8T, and Peter's asked me to post a full report. As my posts have generally been far too long for just about everybody, I'll break things into installments, with each installment focused on a different topic. So here goes!








- Ceilidh


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Midterm Review -- background to this thread*

A Reminder of What We're Doing
As this thread's been dormant for a while and newcomers can be forgiven for not wading through all of its pages, here's a little reminder/ summary:
Historical Background:
This thread started in Fall 2003 during Peter (Pyce)'s search for better ride comfort on his Shine SRSS-equipped Jetta TDI, and it has since sort of morphed into a discussion of how to maximize Handling-Plus-Comfort on the Golf/Jetta IV platform. As such it's currently focused on the so-called "GT" suspension -- one that's fast, forgiving, and comfortable over long distances on a variety of roads in a variety of weather conditions. This type of suspension is not necessarily the most "fun" (e.g., it won't be the sharpest-steering or the one offering the most slide-the-tail thrills); nor is it even remotely the fastest way around a road-race track or autocross course, but it's probably more in keeping with the basic character of the Golf/Jetta IV than the autocross, road-racer, or "darter" setups, and it can be satisfying over the long term. In any case, it's where we are now.







(Ian (Daemon42) made a good case for exploring another category -- the "sports" setup, which is optimized for fun and rewarding driver involvement, and maybe we'll try that in the future....)
Within the GT category, there are already two very good off-the-shelf suspension kits out there: the Shine "Real Street Suspension", and the Neuspeed "SofSport" suspension (actually, the Shine setup is said to be good enough for light track work, but we're lumping it here among the GT setups as it's quite usable on real roads). Both kits come with matched springs & Bilstein HD shocks (the Neuspeed uses specially-valved Bilstein, whilst the Shine is in some ways designed around the normal HD's), and both offer the option of fairly hefty rear anti-roll bars. Between the two, the Shine is generally acknowledged to be the highest-performance street suspension available, whilst the SofSport is said to be a reasonable alternative for those willing to give up some handling in return for a sleeker appearance and (possibly) a somewhat softer ride. (Note: we haven't found a whole lot of people who have good back to back experience with both of these suspensions, so the preceding statement is based on hearsay and general suspension principles.)
The problem with the SRSS and SofSport options, however, is that for some drivers on some roads, they ride a bit rough -- rough enough for people to say "There's nothing "soft" about the SofSports", and for others to switch back to stock setups after a few seasons of "abuse" (note: for many other drivers, these suspensions work perfectly -- it really does seem to depend upon the tastes of the driver, and the type of roads he/she normally drives on).
As mentioned at the outset, Peter (Pyce) had a full Shine kit (springs + bar + Bilsteins) for a while; he loved it until he moved to San Francisco, after which the concrete highway seams and expansion joints began to drive him crazy. Since then he's been exploring a variety of setups -- some of them quite unorthodox -- and that exploration (together with valuable contributions from Daemon42, OldmanTDI, Alexb75, f1forkvr6, GTItraveler, Dick Shine, 4dBunny, Wolf (sorry Wolf, forgot your tag!), and others) has formed the bulk of this thread.



_Modified by Ceilidh at 6:46 PM 6-1-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Midterm Review -- Approach and Context*

Somewhere along the way (with many thanks to Peter), this thread has taken on a very distinct flavor in how it's approached suspension evaluation. For reasons we'll mention in the next installment, almost anything one does to the stock suspension will make it feel like it has "Less Understeer!!" and "Less Roll!!", at least at first (even though the handling in many cases has gotten worse), and thus the forum is filled with breathless (and honest







) testimonials from people who just love their new XYZ setup. That's great for the people posting (after all, after a person's spent hundreds of $ on a new suspension, it'd be sad if he/she were unhappy with it), but it makes it hard for a VW newcomer to sort out what's really good and what's....less so.
The ideal solution would be to get a bunch of cars together, all mounted on the same wheels & tires, but set up with different suspension kits, and have the same set of drivers try them all out. That way you get real comparisons, and it'd become obvious whether setup A outhandled B while riding more softly than C, etc. I think Dick Shine tried to organize something like that this past year, but some of the other manufacturers declined, and knowing Peter (and the sheer number of modded VWs in his neck of the woods), perhaps this get together will still happen someday, somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area.....
Until then, a poor but workable substitute is to get the rest of us, the far-flung fans of the Vortex, to do a Virtual Comparison Test. If we're careful and attentive, we can compare suspension setups that we've each individually tried, and over time we can make up a more-or-less definitive guide for what works well or less well on our cars. To do that, we just need do 3 things:
1) We have to be detailed in what report (e.g., On what kind of roads is the ride rough? In what ways is "understeer" less than before? etc.).
2) We have to state things in terms of comparisons (e.g., rather than say, "It's a really neutral setup.", it's better to explain that "On the stock setup, I could not hang the tail out by cranking the wheel under steady throttle; with the XYZ, I can get a momentary slide that self-recovers....").
3) And finally (and here's the trickiest part): we have to "close the loop". That is, if I've tried 6 suspensions, and Peter's tried 18 -- but none of my 6 are identical to any of Peter's 18 -- we have no way of knowing if the best of my 6 is better or worse than the best of Peter's 18. If one of my 6 is the same as one of Peter's 18, that's better -- at least we have a single baseline for comparisons. But if TWO of my 6 are identical to two of Peter's 18 -- we're all set! Once Peter tells me how different he thinks the two shared setups are, that gives me a way to calibrate his findings; i.e., if I know what is "A" and "B" are, and he tells me that "C" is halfway between "A" and "B" in comfort but twice as good as "B" in handling, then I can compare "C" to the various things I've tried.

Anyway, the above is a long-winded way of explaining why I now have Shine front springs on my Koni-equipped GTI: Peter and I both know how the stock suspension behaves, and now my car is pretty much identical to a setup he's actually tried (right down to the 15" wheels and OEM tires). There are a few differences still, of course (Jetta vs. Golf, TDI vs. 1.8T, etc.), but we're close enough to start comparing notes and calibrating, which will be one point of the following installments.
As for Alex and PMB, we have to get one of you in a full Shine (springs, Bilsteins, plus bar), as that will give you two setups (stock and Shine) in common with Peter, and then we can at least take a stab at putting the SofSport/Koni setup in the right place on the spectrum.









Why So Much Theory?
Lastly, anyone reading through this thread will see a lot of theory & associated musings. If theory bores you, skip it! It's there because none of us wants to spend money needlessly, and the more we understand the theory, the more we can assess what to try next. It's an iterative process: we use the theory to plan the next experiment, then we use the experimental results to improve/ change the theory. (Note: in some ways this thread's a companion to the "Shall we one more time - McPherson..." thread, which is almost all theory & modeling.) Some people feel that we're too theoretical -- but it's fun(!), and cheaper than bolting and unbolting lots and lots of parts. But the endgoal here is to get real setups that work; the theory's just a tool.
Ok, so much for context....

Cheers, everyone!
- Ceilidh


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_That's good to know. That does seem odd though, since Neuspeed has set of SofSports for the 1.8T that are supposed to be 0.5" F and 0.5" R; instead of the 0.25" F and 0.50" R that my car was supposed to spec at given that I purchased the part numbers for the Golf IV VR6 and I have a 1.8T.
Doesn't really matter to me as I am very happy with the results. Now that I have had a chance to let the springs seat properly (read "settle"), I'll take measurements again and provide final drop numbers.
PMB

Thats interesting. Somehow I don't think the numbers on Neuspeed's website are accurate. They list the Jetta and Golf/GTI springs with the same drops and part numbers. The Jetta weighs more though, so I would imagine that the Jetta would drop a little more. 
I'm curious now so I'm going to measure mine too...


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Midterm Review -- Things We've Learnt Thus Far*

Continuing the midterm review for newcomers....
Here are some of the things we've learnt thus far (primarily from Peter's experiments -- I'm just the scribe!); this is just a quick summary -- if you'd like more detail, please read the body of the thread.








Note: Peter, if I've got anything wrong or misstated here, please chime in & correct it -- thanks!

1) Front must be high.
Many huge threads about this one, but GTItraveler & Peter tried different ride heights on the former's Dune Buggy coilover-equipped car (same springs, same shocks, only the ride height was changed), and got emphatic comfirmation: the best handling was at the Shine ride height (about 0.5 inch higher than stock), and even 1/4" of lowering caused noticeable degradation. Lowering from Shine height led to increased roll, loss of steering response, increased understeer, and increased tire squealing, with the effect noticeable even from the passenger seat.
For the above reason, this thread doesn't really talk about setups that lower the front end of the car; the Neuspeed SofSports are an exception, in part because they're said not to lower very much, in part because Alexb75's been a faithful contributor, and he's trying them now.







Plus 4dBunny's put in a lot of research, and it'll be neat to learn more about his experiences. But for the most part, we're interested in stock height front ends, or even slightly higher.
This finding is consistent with suspension theory, as is being explored in the Shall We...McPherson thread.

2) Rear can be low.
A more recent experiment involved a short spring and a collection of different spring-seat spacers at the rear of Peter's Jetta. Again, same spring rate, same shocks (and settings) -- all that changed was the rear ride height. The finding here was that lowering the rear end causes reduced roll, reduced understeer, and improved turn-in and steering response -- all with absolutely no penalty in ride comfort. I think the effect was less dramatic than the reverse effect at the front, but it was still noticeable.
It appears that if performance is the goal, you're free to drop the rear until you start having bumpstop problems. (Moi, I'd prefer to keep the rear of my GTI near stock height, as I wish to preserved ground clearance (for winter snow) and load capacity (for moving friends' furniture, etc.)...)
This particular episode was a case of experiments correcting the theory: prior to it I thought the rear roll center lay near the twist beam; now it's become clear that it lies just above the road surface, and if anything it rises just a smidgem when the rear is lowered. Hence dropping the rear end reduces the roll couple (vertical distance between CG and roll axis), which accounts for the beneficial effects.

3) Roll Reduction is the Priority
This particular hypothesis was one of the more controversial ones Peter got into at the outset, as it goes against conventional tuner-magazine wisdom. There are pages and pages about it in the thread, which we won't repeat here, but in summary: the stock suspension setup understeers not because of front-lateral-weight-transfer due to a stiff front end, but because of roll-induced adverse camber at the front tires. (Or in English: the stock car understeers mostly because the front tires lean over, not because they're overloaded.) This roll / camber (intentionally) causes understeer to set in very, very early, while the tires are still operating in the linear regime. Reduce the adverse camber, and the car will understeer less.
The above principle has several interesting implications:
a) strangest and most controversial (but a commonplace effect in RWD cars) is that you don't necessarily get more understeer when you stiffen the front end. Because of the forward weight bias, the front end strongly controls the amount of rolling (one reason why the roll-center & front ride height is so important). If you stiffen the front, yes you increase the front-lateral-weight-transfer (which would normally increase understeer), but you also dramatically reduce the roll -- which reduces the adverse camber, which in turn tends to reduce the understeer. Make the front end too stiff, of course, and the car will understeer like a pig, but it's surprising how much stiffening it can take before the understeer actually sets in. Peter found months ago that matching Shine front springs to stock rears and bars can make for a nice-handling car; well, judging from this past week (in which I've been experimenting with the same setup), I'd say that he's right. With Shine front springs & stock rears & bars, my car understeers less than it did with stock springs & bars all around. More on this when I actually get to the body of this report (in a later installment), but the effect appears to be there.
b) in terms of prioritization, when modifying the car from stock configuration, our priority should lie in reducing roll in the best way possible -- not in shifting the lateral weight transfer to the rear. An example of this (though one few people argue about, as the principles are less well-known) concerns the front ride height: if you drop the front end, you lower the front roll center -- and a lowered front roll center means more weight is being transferred at the rear(!). Thus if what mostly matters is lateral weight transfer, lowering the car should decrease understeer. But that's not the case. Instead, dropping the roll center also causes more roll (and adverse camber) -- and the resultant adverse camber causes so much more understeer that the handling overall gets worse.
In any case, it's because of this principle that the good tuners (e.g., Neuspeed, Shine) tend to recommend spring sets with surprisingly stiff front springs (e.g., the Neuspeed 220F/160R, when compared with the stock 150F/130R GTI springs, is 47% stiffer at the front, but only 23% stiffer at the rear) -- the reduction in roll from these spring sets drastically reduces understeer, even though the Front Lateral Weight Transfer actually increases. (Of course, you could reduce understeer even further by installing a stiff rear bar -- but the bar is just a trim, and the spring sets give you the primary boost.)
c) A weird side effect, but one which brings a lot of money to the less worthy "tuners", is that anything that reduces the adverse camber will feel "better than stock" while the tires are working in their linear regime (~<0.35 g). Again, the stock suspension is designed to understeer in the linear regime, by means of adverse camber; therefore if you reduce that camber, even by means that cause truly lousy handling at higher g-forces or on rough roads, the car will seem to handle "better" (at least on smooth roads, at low g-forces). Install a rear bar, and the car rolls less (at least until it's 3-wheeling), so the initial handling's "better". Install a front bar, and ditto. Drop the front end enough so that static negative camber is accentuated, and the car will turn-in more sharply (though at higher speeds in mid-corner it'll roll over onto the tire shoulders and understeer horribly). Install short, soft springs so the car rides on the bumpstops, and it'll roll less (because the bumpstops are really stiff) and appear to understeer less -- even though road-holding on bumps becomes simply atrocious. In short, there are very few after-market kits that will not feel "better" than stock when you first try them out on smooth roads and at moderate speeds -- but that doesn't mean the car actually handles better, in the sense that its performance limits and responses in real world conditions have actually been improved.

4) Understeer is Good
We'll not even try to argue this one here! (Many pages devoted to it, internally....) For now we'll just say that all road/street setups understeer; if they didn't, the manufacturers would be sued out of existence. As Alexb75 pointed out in a recent post, a driver can do much to induce oversteer in a basically understeering car. When a non-racing driver reports "neutral handling" in a road car, he/she is usually referring to increased steering response, crisper turn-in, and more immediate response to longitudinal weight transfer (which allows for the occasional tail slide / trail braking / lift-throttle tuck-in, etc.). We can easily get all those attributes by following standard racing/autocrossing principles (stiffen the rear, induce negative camber at the front, etc.), which also reduce the basic understeer that makes the car forgiving (and usable) for non-racing drivers -- but that's not a good goal. The trick (for a GT suspension) is to get all the nice attributes while losing as little of the forgiveness as possible -- that way we can have fun without killing ourselves.
In practice it's impossible to get all the nice attributes without some loss of basic understeer and forgiveness, and the higher the suspension's performance, the less forgiving it'll be to driver error. But the good setups (e.g., the basic Shine) preserve as much forgiveness as possible.
(Major caveat: we certainly don't want to *increase* the amount of understeer!!! The goal (for a GT) is to preserve the sort of understeer progression that the stock car has (i.e., the way that the understeer gradually builds as the limits are approached), but at higher g-forces and with crisper steering response, etc. The goal is NOT to increase the absolute amount of understeer, nor is it to have understeer that wanders in and out semi-randomly.
We mentione this caveat because some of the "race kits" out there appear to be designed to induce severe, random understeer. For example, one manufacturer (I shan't name names, as this is all hearsay) is said to have lowered springs that are actually softer than stock; if so, then the following might well happen: at rest, the car has quite a bit of static negative camber (because of the front lowering), and a very low front roll center (again, because of the lowering -- the roll center is actually underground). This combination gives the car very crisp initial turn-in, and thus to the proud driver it seems to have "Zero Understeer!!", at least in gentle driving. But when the car's pushed, it initially rolls more than stock (because of the soft springs and the lowered roll center), which quickly puts the outside front tire in extreme adverse camber (because of the severely sloping lower control arm), which brings a rapid onset of understeer (because the outside tire leans more than it did in the stock car!). Even worse, if the car's been lowered enough, it'll soon roll onto the front bumpstops, which suddenly spikes up the spring rate on the outside front tire, which causes the the front lateral weight transfer to spike as well. Thus when the car rolls onto the stops, the understeer spikes up --- an this time the understeer is not the camber-thrust variety (which still allows the driver to steer), but it's the weight-transfer / overload kind -- which means the car can no longer steer.
In short, we'd expect the car described above to have a really unpleasant understeer progression: instead of being gradual & consistent like stock, it starts out with very little understeer, but then understeer sets in and rises rapidly (to beyond stock levels), and then it suddenly spikes up into full-on terminal can't-steer-the-car understeer.
That's *not* what we mean when we say that understeer is good! Understeer is good when it's like the stock car's -- only slightly less.....)
5) Stiff is Bad
Again, no details here -- but once we've stiffened a suspension enough to control roll, pitch, etc., we're well in the regime where further stiffening will reduce mechanical grip (especially on imperfect road surfaces). Hence we want to avoid anything that will require our stiffening things any further. It's partly for this reason that we can't compensate for a lowered front end (which increases the rolling tendency) simply by stiffening the springs -- there are other problems as well, but at a basic level, stiffening the springs (or bars) to compensate for a lowered roll center will not only reduce ride comfort, but it'll actually reduce roadholding on bumpy (i.e., real-world) roads as well.

6) Shocks are Good
Some people say that putting good shocks on the stock suspension will make for a surprisingly nice-handling car. They're right.

7) Konis ride more comfortably than Bilsteins
Peter's finding here: if your local roads have sharp impacts taken at high speeds (e.g., big concrete expansion joints on highways & freeways), then you'll notice quite a bit more impact harshness from Bilstein HD's than you will from Koni Sports.
If your roads do not induce such impacts, the ride differences between the two shocks become much harder to detect.

8) Shocks have a huge impact on ride quality.
Slightly different from #7: if ride quality is really important to you, then the shocks really have to be tuned to the springs. Many aftermarket "kits" consist of an off-the-shelf shock paired to a fairly random spring, and they might not be tuned at all. But the tuning is critical. If the manufacturer has taken pains to match the springs and shocks, the ride can be surprisingly good even with extremely stiff springs. Alternatively, if you're prepared to spend a fair amount of time fiddling, Koni Sports can be adjusted so as to make surprising differences in ride comfort (though you can't adjust the compression damping, so there are limits to what you can accomplish).
If ride quality is not that critical, either because you don't mind a stiff ride, or because your local roads aren't that bad, then you can get by with a good stiff performance shock, such as the Bilstein HD.
More on this later, but my past week's experience has been that shocks have a bigger effect on ride comfort than do springs (at least in the front).

9) Rear stiffness is bad for ride comfort.
Peter's findings here -- keeping the rear springs, shocks, and bar as light as possible is the goal, if ride comfort is a priority. In contrast, the front can go fairly stiff.
These results match theory (twist-beam limitations).

10) Bars don't come "free"
Peter's findings: at least with very stiff anti-roll bars, there's a very real ride penalty, despite some manufacturers' claims that they don't affect the ride.
Again, this result matches theory (details inside the thread).

Ok, that's all that I can remember for now; hopefully we're all back up to speed. Next stop (on another day): a visit to Shine Racing.

Cheers!
- C



_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:47 PM 6-1-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_One thing: when you have a chance, could you please post a measurement from wheel center to fender lip? That way be can compare ride heights without worrying about tire compression/ aspect ratio/ etc.

Here are my measurments:
2001 GTI GLX VR6
Neuspeed Sofsport springs
Bilstein HD dampers
Shine RSB
225/17/45 tires @38PSI all around
From ground to fender lip
FL: 26 1/8 
FR: 26 1/4
RL: 26 3/4
RR: 26 3/8
From centre of wheel bearing to fender lip:
FL: 14 1/2
FR: 14 5/8
RL: 14 3/4
RR: 14 1/2
This is with an empty gas tank and a subwoofer in the hatch. I suspect with a full tank of gas and me in the drivers seat, the heights would equal out a bit. Still it is interesting to note that the heights are all about 14 1/2 with the sofsports.
Sorry I don't have the stock suspension measurements handy. My co-worker has the same car with stock suspension so I can measure his though.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Fronts installed on Stock GTI 1.8T -- ride quality report (phatvw)*

Thank you, PhatVW!
It'll be great to get the stock suspension too; I'll check my Shine-car and post that -- Peter, can you do the same for your Jetta? Thanks again!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Measurements.....*

2002 Jetta GLS (3020 lb with half tank)
Shine 225 lb Front springs
337 (about 140 lb) Rear springs
Koni Yellow dampers
Stock RSB
From center of wheel bearing to fender lip:
FL: 15 1/16
FR: 15
RL: 13 5/8
RR: 13 5/8


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
The problem with the SRSS and SofSport options, however, is that for some drivers on some roads, they ride a bit rough -- rough enough for people to say *"There's nothing "soft" about the SofSports"*

Hehe, I never thought I'd be quoted on that one but I guess it just kinda stuck








Incidentally, I don't think the Sofsports are that harsh anymore, especially with my new Goodyear F1 GSD3 tires.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (phatvw)*

Yes, Phatvw, I've seen your quote in at least two other posts after yours -- you have a flair for catchy phrases!


----------



## Maverick99 (Mar 23, 2002)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (Ceilidh)*

We should get this thread locked at the top of the suspension forum. It is way more infomative than the Eibach or the Suspension thread. 
Does anybody have any any idea how you go about doing that?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (Maverick99)*

I totally agree, specially on the lowering thread there's a HUGE amount of junk and stuff like "is 3" too low?" and has made the thread WAY TOO BIG.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (Maverick99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Maverick99* »_We should get this thread locked at the top of the suspension forum. It is way more infomative than the Eibach or the Suspension thread. 
Does anybody have any any idea how you go about doing that?

Better not to ..... look what happens with the other sticky tread, Lowering for Handling, not Looks.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Midterm Review -- background to this thread (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Better not to ..... look what happens with the other sticky tread, Lowering for Handling, not Looks.....

I think a better way would be to create a sticky FAQ that people cannot post to and include the link to some of the better threads (like 1.8T forum)... this way people won't just see a thread on the top to post crap to! and it can be maintained by adding newer informative threads.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Measurements..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_2002 Jetta GLS (3020 lb with half tank)
Shine 225 lb Front springs
337 (about 140 lb) Rear springs
Koni Yellow dampers
Stock RSB
From center of wheel bearing to fender lip:
FL: 15 1/16
FR: 15
RL: 13 5/8
RR: 13 5/8

Hi Peter,
I just noticed: so the 337 rear springs are actually 1" lower than the SofSports?? (Comparing your numbers to Phatvw's...) Given that the SofSport rears (according to 4dBunny) already lower by 1", that would imply that the 337 rears are 2" lower than stock -- does that seem reasonable to you?
note: It was 48 degrees here last night(!)....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Measurements..... (Ceilidh)*

Winston, I think it is not so good to compare even the same make and model spring on different cars. I am pretty sure that no pare of springs would be exactly the same. If someone gets Sofsport and gets 1" lower rear, it does not mean that the same will happen on somebody else's car with the same SofSport springs. Manufacturers do tell how much their springs lower in general, but it will never be the same on all cars. All I can measure is my car with stock and then 337 and if I remember correctly, the lowering was at about 1.2". Guess on other cars will be different. Also, let's always keep in mind that I have a Jetta, which is heavier in the rear than a Golf, and most fo you guys drive Golfs. Also, very few manufacturers do sell different springs for G and J. Usually it is "one size for all" and this automatically means that a Jetta will sit lower than a Golf (in the rear) if equal spring rate spring is mounted. I have ordered coilover perches for the rear, so I can lift it up when needed. They should be here in days and this means we can then do a detailed experiment of how rear height on same springs affects roll.......
On another note, you were posting above that your rear springs are about 130 lb. Did you guys test those as well and this is what you saw on dick's tester or this is just your guesstimate? The reason I am asking is because from our tests here, the Stock Jetta spring (which has the same color code as the Sport Package Jetta Spring, so it is the stiffest Jetta Sedan rear spring) the spring came at about 120 lb when compressed to installed height ...... So, if the Sport Package Jetta spring is 120 lb (let's assume the test was correct) I have difficulty to believe that a GTI rear spring would be stronger than that. I hope I am wrong.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Measurements..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_.....you were posting above that your rear springs are about 130 lb. Did you guys test those as well and this is what you saw on dick's tester or this is just your guesstimate?.....

Hi Peter,
No, it's not from a measurement (eventually, when I try different rear springs, I'll bring the stock rears down to Shine's and have them measured), but it was Dick's estimate for a GTI. He also mentioned that the various stock springs vary in rate as well as in free length, and that some of the Jetta springs get to be as high as 160 lb/in.
Dick also suggested that perhaps the motorcycle spring tester your shop used might have been a little off, as it'd be difficult to have a coil spring actually decrease in stiffness with travel; certainly the two springs he tested while I watched were dead linear, once the end coils fully closed up. Watching him do a retest on his old mechanical spring tester, I could see how errors could creep in: at high forces/ spring compression, the mechanism would bind enough to give artificially low readings (quite significantly low, sometimes) -- a few judicious taps with a mallet at the right places would "pop" the dial to the correct reading, but without those taps, the spring rate would seem to decrease with compression.
Going back to ride height: do your 337 rears give roughly the same ride height as did the 150 lb/in Shines? Thanks very much!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Measurements..... (Ceilidh)*

No, the 337 do provide the lowest rear to my car. I have to go home and look at the wall in the garage where I write every measurement from all the combos we tried as to tell you the exact numbers, but I do remember that the 337 is the lowest. It is not by much thought, maybe about 0,2 to 0,3 inches.
You and Dick may have a point on my motorcycle tester, but my butt tells me slightly different story ..... Let's say my tester is wrong and his is right, so the Jetta Stock spring is 160 lb or even thereabout. Then let's say my tester is wrong and the Shine 150 lb is really 150 lb...... Well, if you remember, I tried both and there is HUGE difference in spring rate, at least enough to concern comfort. So, something somewhere is not right, do you agree? I guess I have to totally jack up the car, take out all springs and shocks and send all the spring I have in the garage ot Dick and all the shocks to a shock dyno and then we will know once and forever....... Man, it really bugs me that we are on page 19 and the only sure thing is your front stocks and Shine rates. Why Dick's shop was not in SF? Why don't you NE VW enthusiasts just swing by Dick's place and let him test your springs?







We have to find a way to know about these things, so we can finally quantify our modest findings here.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Measurements..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_..... Let's say my tester is wrong and his is right, so the Jetta Stock spring is 160 lb or even thereabout. Then let's say my tester is wrong and the Shine 150 lb is really 150 lb...... Well, if you remember, I tried both and there is HUGE difference in spring rate, at least enough to concern comfort. So, something somewhere is not right, do you agree?..... 

Hi Peter,
I'm afraid I wasn't very clear (sorry!) and have given the wrong impression....
1) I shouldn't have implied that Dick said all Jetta springs are at 160; I didn't ask how soft they get, but I imagine some of them are as low as we've been thinking. What he suggested is that there's more variation in stock spring rate than we've been assuming, with different spring rates assigned to different models (that is, the different colour codes might apply not only to different lengths, but to different rates as well). The "160" figure was the maximum for a stock spring. He didn't say which Jetta that was for (I didn't ask), but judging from OldmanTDI's old posts, I imagine it must be for the "24V Jetta" Oldman's referred to. In any case, it's likely your car is much softer than that. (As for the "130" figure, that was Dick's estimate for my GTI -- because we didn't take the rear springs off, we didn't measure them.)
2) Also, it is possible that Dick's original rate figures might be a little on the high side. The "retest" referred to in the earlier post was when Dick took the Shine 225 off the new digital tester, and tried it out on his old mechanical tester to do a calibration run. The result surprised him -- on lighter springs, he had found little deviation between the two, but on the fairly stiff 225 (which came out to 257 lb/in on the digital tester), the mechanical tester was reading about 10% heavier than the digital. So I suppose it's possible that the "160" estimate might be on the high side -- but since the mechanical tester doesn't appear to deviate by a consistent amount (i.e., it's not always 10% high), how much so is, at the moment, anybody's guess.
3) Bottom line, once again (and alas, as you've pointed out!) we (at Vortex) really don't know what the real spring rates are! I kind of trust the digital tester (it's a much beefier rig than the mechanical one, with less potential for binding, etc. -- and the mechanical one at Shine's shop looked to be much heftier than the motorcycle spring tester in your photos), but in any case our best bet is to really start sending springs over to Walpole MA. That way we can get a bunch of springs tested on the same machine, and we'll have a database that's (at the very least) self-consistent (and which will probably be accurate as well).


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Measurements..... (Ceilidh)*

Winston...
We know that color codes means different spring rates. I do have the 1 Silver 3 Green dots Rear spring on my jetta. The 24 VR6 Jetta has the exact same rear spring as mine. The 2.0 Jetta has the exact same rear spring as well. Other Jettas with Sport packages I have seen also have the same rear spring! Now, maybe I have not seen all the possible combinations, but to me if a Jetta VR6 24V with Sport Package mounts same spring as my car, then I assume it is the strongest Jetta Sedan spring........ Now, at this point means that my 1 Silver 3 Green is let's say about 120 lb and Dick had seen another 1 Silver 3 Green to be as high as 160 lb...... If this is true, then it is extremely disappointing, because it means that the variation between same color codes is big enough to make all our experiments invalid. I hope he is wrong IF he is saying that even the stock springs variate within the same color code.......


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Measurements..... (pyce)*

Hi Peter,
I'm getting into trouble with my conjecturing.









Here's what I actually know:
1) Dick told me my GTI 1.8T rear springs are "probably around 130 lb/in".
2) He also mentioned that "some of the Jetta springs get as high as 160".
3) He didn't say which springs get that high -- the 24V was only my conjecture, based on my no-doubt faulty recollection of one of Oldman's past posts.








4) Dick also suggested that the testing apparatus your shop used to measure your springs might have had some sort of non-linearity, and that they were perhaps measuring on the low side when the springs were at greatest compression.
5) He has not yet had a chance to do extensive measurements on the new digital spring tester, and his database of past spring rates (which I assume is the source of the quoted "130" and "160" figures) comes from measurements on his older mechanical spring tester, which is still in his shop.
6) I watched a spring measurement (on the nominal-225 front spring) performed on both the new digital and the old mechanical testers, and witnessed a roughly 10% discrepancy, with the old tester reading higher (stiffer) than the new one.
7) Dick seemed surprised at the discrepancy, as he had hitherto seen much closer agreement. He did not say what springs he had previously tested, but my impression (which might be faulty) was that the closer agreement was on lighter springs.
8) All three tests that I witnessed (2 springs on the digital, one retest on the mechanical) yielded linear spring rates.

Here's what I believe:
9) VW's OEM control over spring rates will probably be better than that of all but the best of the aftermarket suppliers. I have no reason for saying this, other than from my own experience in a very different industry (robotics), where we destroyed several engineers' lives over the period of many months, hammering at the accursed suppliers to finally provide parts that would actually meet the design specs. Large companies have the time, the manpower, the lawyers, and the $ clout to knock heads together and get consistent parts made; small tuning shops are at the mercy of what the supplier gives them. For all these reasons I'd be very surprised if VW's rates varied by more than a few percent between batches (whereas I wouldn't be surprised at all if some aftermarket springs deviated wildly from claimed spec). Hence if all these Jetta springs have the same colour code, then yes, absolutely, I agree with you that they must not be varying between 120 and 160 lbs!

Here's what I conjecture:
10) There must be another spring that Dick Shine is referring to, and we should ask him what Jetta it comes off of (perhaps it's a wagon?) -- Dick, if you're reading along, please feel free to chime in!








11) Regardless of #10, there's a reasonable chance that the 120 lb/in figure might be a little low -- if (and only if) I'm actually recalling your earlier post about it. If I recall correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong!), the spring had a slightly higher rate initially, then sank down to 120 when compressed to the On-the-Car-Fitted-Length (or did that happen only on a different spring? - I can't remember!). If so, then it's quite possible that the dial-gauge part of the testing machine was binding under high load, which would give an erroneously light reading. In any case, it's very difficult to have a coil spring soften so drastically (it can be done, but the spring geometry would have some noticeable characteristics), and hence the highish mid-travel readings you got might be the closest to the true rates.
12) Regardless of #10 and #11, it's also quite possible that the 160 figure is on the high side, as it was performed on the mechanical tester.

So.....yes, after 19 pages, we don't yet know the true spring rates on our cars. If Dick isn't tracking this thread, we can give him a call to clarify the "160" statement (perhaps I misheard him). Another thing we can do is ask him to do some more calibration tests to relate the old tester to the new one; if the discrepancy is predictable, we can apply a correction function to the spring rates he's sent you, and get the rates that way.
But on the whole, the sooner we can get people to send springs over to Shine for testing on the Digital rig, the better!
Hope that makes things more clear, and sorry if I've confused the issue. Cheers!
- W
P.S. -- on the OEM codes: I was surprised to hear that the rates varied, as there are a myriad of different codes for different Golfs (on the 1.8T GTI, it seems to change on almost a yearly basis), and I had thought, that for some of these different codes, VW was simply changing the free length slightly to keep a consistent ride height under different loads (the free length is easy to set during the heat-treatment part of the manufacturing process, whereas the rate variation would require careful tailoring of the wire gauge or the (non-integer) # of active coils, either of which would involve more destroyed engineer-lives for supplier-monitoring -- but I guess these Germans are nothing if not exacting!).


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Measurements..... (Ceilidh)*

The Jetta spring which could be higher in spring rate is the Jetta Wagon spring to handle more weight in the back! I bet that's why the rates for "some" Jetta have been higher. 
I know for instance that the Neuspeed Jetta Wagon rear spring is longer than the regular Jetta but after install it will be at the same height.
The other thing is that springs on our VWs are kind of a random... the color codes determine the rate. some people get softer, some harder... I know that some GTI cars get Golf/Jetta springs and some get a little stiffer, a little lower springs (not recoginizable easily) with different color code... which sucks BTW. 
All I know is that the stock rears are the softest I have seen compared to Shine, Neuspeed and Eibach (butt feel).


----------



## willZ (May 26, 2004)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Hello All,
In my search for improved handling for my '01 GLS 1.8T I've been reading and rereading the posts regarding Mk4 "GT" suspension. I've no interest in "slamming" my VW, just would like to be able to keep the sidewalls of the front tires off the pavement when driving quickly (yes, I adjust the air pressure) and not need a kidney belt on a long trip. I've pretty much decided to take a chance on the KYB AGX shocks because of the ease of adjustability and cost. All that remains is choosing springs and a rear bar/beam stiffener. The shine concept of tucking the bar inside the rear very much appeals as it's such an elegant solution. Wonder if he'd consider building a bar w/ a bit thinner wall thickness for a softer tuned setup?
*Peter:* Just to add to your bank of spring info, my GLS came w/ factory (not dealer installed) sport springs. The fronts have 2 green and 4 white dots. The rears have 2 green and 3 silver. BTW, thanks so much for all your research! Next time you're in Oregon I'd be happy to buy you a good PNW microbrew or three.








I have, from my P1800 Volvo days, learned the importance of alignment in regards to turn-in and body roll and have found a product that may or may not be of some help w/ the MK4 front camber without the noise of a solid mount camber plate. 

http://www.spcperformance.com/....html
They tell me that this kit will be available by the end of June. -1 degree for street use would be pretty tolerable in regards to tire wear and sure couldn't hurt the drivability.
any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Thanks, Will 


_Modified by willZ at 6:21 PM 6-3-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (willZ)*

Hi Will, Welcome to the Vortex!







Your car is pretty much what Winston drives, so would be nice ot hear form him about his Shine front experience. I am sure that would help you make decisions.... I myself looking forward to rear his next installments as to find out how much of the things we have found in the past would coincide with his findings. As for having beer in Oregon, I will be driving to Seattle next month and would gladly stop by and meet you. If you have not done suspension work by then, I would let you try my car so to get better idea of what I had been trying to say here. Enjoy it here, it is fun!


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Pyce - with the changing of all the rear springs you have been doing, have you been using the rubber mount on the top of the springs?
I have that on mine and it looks it will raise lower the car about 1/2" if used or not, depending on the height you want.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (captainoblivious)*

Yes, Captain, always used the rubber piece. Looking at it, I have hard time to believe that will make difference of half inch, but maybe about 1/4 if an inch and who knows, maybe even less. Strange you get half inch, seems a lot to me.....


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

I didn't get 1/2 inch. I haven't even removed it. 
I was just under the car half asleep last night trying to find my exhaust leak when I thought of that one. 1/4" is more accurate for those who want to *fine tune* rear height.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

Hi Everyone,
Just a really quick note: I've had Peter (Pyce)'s setup (Shine 225 front, stock rear, stock bars, Koni Sports front & rear) on my car now for a little over 1000 miles, on roads ranging from Boston city to New England country to NYC Tri-State highways; there's still some testing that needs doing (in particular a really nasty stretch of patched, frost-heaved pavement that I know well just outside Boston), but thus far I've reproduced every one of Peter's observations on this setup. It's much faster than stock, but just as forgiving; you'd have to work very hard to spin this car, but it rotates nicely with hard trail-braking, and the rough road roadholding is very good. There are some aspects I'm still trying to work out and understand, and when I do (or rather, when I think I do!







), I'll post a full report. Until then, if you're interested in this setup and how it feels, read through Peter's posts on it -- it's pretty much what I'm getting too.
Cheers, everyone!
- C


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Travelogue!*

Greetings, Folks!
Before we get into the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup, here's a little stage-setting:
Since Shine Racing Products features prominently on this forum, and since the majority of you aren't New Englanders, I thought some of you might like to have a mental image of the place....
First off, if you go to the Shine website and look at the picture of the place, you see a nondescript building in a nondescript industrial park. That's an accurate picture -- but if you were to zoom the camera out a fair bit, you'd be in for a surprise. I live in Boston's "North Shore", where life is crowded, there's a fair bit of industry, and auto repair & tuning shops tend to be in places where you wouldn't want to park your car at night. But Walpole, in the "South Shore", looks like the stage set for the musical "The Music Man". It's the sort of place where the Victorian houses get bigger and finer the closer you approach to the town center, with lots of green lawns and Volvo station wagons separating one big house from another, and where the town green long ago abandoned the oh-so-tacky white wooden bandstand/ gazebo in favor of a nicely built stone & cobble structure instead (so much more permanent and substantial, don't you know). Life is good in Walpole, MA, and by the looks of things it's been good there since about 1760 or so -- nothing flashy or overtly wealthy or touristy or anything like that, but the local farmers did all right back then, and their modern equivalent (what do these people do for a living, I wonder?) are just happily trundling through life in the same fashion.
Shine's shop is about 2 miles outside town, in an industrial park in the one scrubby area I saw (maybe that's why the industrial park is there: perhaps the land was useless for anything else). None of the guys live in the area, but the shop's there because there's loads of room for a reasonable rent. And they have a lot of space. Many of you would enjoy an afternoon there -- there are a lot of toys. You come in through a cramped little outer waiting room (seemingly decorated in the mid-70s, though I don't think they've been around that long), where the main embellishments are some trophies on the wall (all VWs), a spring and an antiroll bar on a shelf, and a 2-foot bookshelf with Carroll Smith's "Engineer to Win", a giant 1990's picture book of Soviet/Russian combat aircraft, and (perhaps left by a customer?) a serious tome about AIDS in America. But walk through the small doorway on the other side of the waiting room, and you're in an hefty T-shaped service bay with 20 foot ceilings and room for lots and lots of cars. Taking up about a third of the space are 4 race cars: an A2 Golf (the same one that appears in several of the waiting room trophies -- and by the way, it's at stock height); a Scirocco; a Porsche 944, and a 1950's Porsche Spyder. There's a bit of clutter in the corners and crannies (which bothers Dick Shine, as he pointed it out without my saying anything about it) but the area around the actual lifts are clean and tidy. The clutter's fun to prowl around -- first thing I saw on entering the bay was a rack with all the broken antiroll bars you guys have been talking about (yes, Peter, I've picked up a part of your car); [Note: as Dick indicated on the other thread, all the broken ones were miswelded, with virtually no filler where the fillets should have been. When you hold one of the broken ones up next to a correctly-made bar, you can see why the former broke (which gives a person much more confidence about the bar in its correct state).] There are also Bilstein boxes and springs, springs, and more springs (front, rear, coilover, pigtails, straight, etc., etc.) all over the place. Overall, it's a place that has its priorities right: It's the sort of shop where the boss's chair literally has the stuffing poking out from the ripped upsholstery -- but all the tools and equipment are immaculately maintained and state of the art, the lighting is good and the technicians have room to work.
Those of you who have spent time around shops will understand what I mean in the next statement. It's a happy shop. They were one technician short the Monday morning I was there (their #1 technician called in sick that morning, after a number of cars had unexpectedly turned up over the weekend), and there was still a lot of laughing, joking, and bantering going on. The only one who looked stressed was Eli, who seems to be in charge of daily operations and therefore has to fix the problems that arise, and even he was quite open and friendly between crises. (The receptionist was fun -- she keeps a box of Milkbone dog biscuits for the Industrial Park dog that wanders randomly by, and when a stalled car needed to be pushed into the bay, she got up from her desk and pushed the car in; later that day, during lunch break, she was curled up in a chair, sound asleep.) As for Dick Shine himself, he's ex-Navy, was formerly an engineer and then an engineering manager, and on the day I was there (because they were understaffed) he was under the cars wrenching away, cracking jokes about how he normally gets to be lazy and not do any actual work. All the guys there are pretty bright; university degrees (some with advanced engineering degrees) for all of them, and Eli in particular seeming more like one of my engineering colleagues than a "normal" car guy; Dick and Eli could easily be working elsewhere, making a lot more money, but they appear to be doing the tuning thing because it's a lot more interesting than sitting in a cubicle.
As for customer service: when I was there, a kid turned up with a dead Audi A4 on which SRS had installed a new turbocharger a week earlier. Turned out a belt tensioner had disintegrated, destroying and throwing the belts, and all that needed refitting was a new set of belts and a new tensioner. I gave Dick a chance to pass the buck by asking "So do these tensioners just come out defective sometimes?", but he simply shook his head and said "No, probably the technician didn't tighten a bolt down; then it vibrated loose and wrecked the tensioner. This one's our fault.". A bit later, I was just chatting with the kid (a repeat SRS customer, with lots of nice mods he's been doing piecemeal as funds permit), and he mentioned offhand that he's going to join AAA so as to avoid future towing charges. Dick overheard our conversation, asked "How much did the towing cost you?", and then had Eli reimburse the kid for the towing.
Anyway, this forum has had occasionally conflicting accounts of Shine's service, with most people very complimentary, but some quite scathing. From what I could see from just a morning's visit, it's a good, honest shop, with the following quirks you should be aware of:
1) Emailing is not the way to go. I spent a few hours there, and the entire time Eli hardly ever got off the phone (and when he wasn't on the phone, he was bustling around the shop trying to sort out the issues the phone calls had raised). I can well imagine an email -- especially an email that requires a lot of time for answering -- sitting indefinitely in the Inbox. So if you wish to contact Shine, use the telephone! (If this seems non-21st century, it's really not that bad: which would you rather have: a "customer service rep" hired to deal with all the emails, or a phone conversation with a guy who knows an awful lot about the product, and who indeed played a key role in the actual product development?)
2) Eli has a stressful job. If you catch him at a time when everything's gone wrong and everybody's competing for his attention, and especially if you do so regarding how to use a Shine product in a way they don't recommend, he's probably not going to spend a lot of time with you. If that happens, just ask him when would be a better time to chat, and then call back when it's less busy. And above all, talk with these guys the way you would with a fellow Vdub enthusiast! The key people are doing this because they love cars and tuning; they seem very happy to talk, so long as time permits(!).
Right. End of travelogue. In the next installments, when I talk about Peter's Shine-front setup, I might refer to things Dick & Eli mentioned to me during my visit -- now you have a mental picture of where the conversations took place.
Cheers!
- C


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Travelogue! (Ceilidh)*

Very accurate picture of life at SRSVW. Too bad you didn't get a chance to meet Steve (I assume this is who didn't show up?) - you would have enjoyed chatting with him about cars, old wooden boats, and just life in general. He's been wrenching/fabricating for quite some time now, and could probably tear town and rebuild a VW with his eyes closed. Very, very talented bunch of guys. Well worth the trip from Portsmouth NH to Walpole when serious work needs to be done!
BTW, did you see the tortured connecting rod and shattered piston on the window sill? I never did get the story behind that one ....


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Travelogue! (f1forkvr6)*

Winston...... you so much remind me of Honore De Balzac (his style!) ....... Ever thought of leaving the robotics and dedicate to writing?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Travelogue! (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_...Too bad you didn't get a chance to meet Steve.... you would have enjoyed chatting with him about cars, old wooden boats, and just life in general. ....BTW, did you see the tortured connecting rod and shattered piston on the window sill? I never did get the story behind that one ....

Hi Chris,
Old wooden boats, eh? Very cool! I didn't see the rod & piston on the window sill -- I'll look for it next time!
- C


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front impressions: Intro*

Hi Everyone,
Ok, let's start our analysis of the Shine-Front / Stock Rear setup. I've been mulling over how to do this, and it seems best (since we'll be doing this in installments) if we do it feature-by-feature, mixing theory and observation in each installment; that way people's eyes won't cross trying to wade through too much theory at once, and we'll be able to keep the observations in context.
This initial analysis will review the setup, and will cover the overall amounts of roll, understeer, and roadholding, as compared with the stock suspension; for comparisons with the full Shine rig, please refer to Peter's earlier comments on this thread.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Setup and note on Shine spring numbers*

Review: Setup
The car in question is a 2000 GTI 1.8T, on stock 195/65-15 wheels and tires (Goodyear LS -- a very low-performance, ride-optimized tire), on which the only previous modification was the replacement of the OEM shocks by Koni Sports (Yellows) front and rear.
Just prior to installing the front springs, I ran the car hard over a variety of Boston-area and NYC-area roads & highways, so that the ride & handling characteristics would be fresh in my mind. Within 10 days of installing the Shine fronts, I drove 1000+ miles on the same roads to gain a pseudo back-to-back comparison.
The "modified" car is (again) stock 2000 GTI 1.8T w/ Koni Yellows, stock wheels & tires, etc., only with Shine "225" front springs replacing the OEM front springs; the rear springs and front & rear antiroll bars remained as stock.

A Note on Shine Spring Rate and Nomenclature
The Shine "225" springs are stiffer than 225 lb/in.
As it turns out, the Shine designations (225 or 250 front, 150, 180, or 200 rear) should be treated as "parts numbers", not as actual spring rates. The designation is what Shine's spring supplier (Blue Coil) calls (and marks) the spring, and in general the true spring rate for a particular Shine spring is 10%-20% higher than the "parts number". In any case, the springs are the rate that Shine wants (in developing a new spring, they extensively test and modify until they have what they desire, after which they hand the spring to the supplier and say "Build This"; Blue Coil then manufactures the spring and affixes its own "rating" to each one, which Shine then uses as a parts #).
For my car, the "225" springs came out to 257 lb/in on Shine's new digital spring tester, and about 280 lb/in on their old mechanical tester. The stock GTI spring that came off my car measured at 148 lb/in on the digital tester (Dick did not measure it on the mechanical tester).
Rear (stock) spring rate is unknown, but probably lies somewhere in the 120-130 lb/in range.
With the 257 lb/in spring, the front of my car has come up 3/4" (it's at about 15 1/2" wheel center to fender lip), and the reverse rake is such that I'm having a little trouble seeing out the rear-view mirror when I have people in the back seat (the mirror and the top of the rear-window frame are at about the same height, so the frame cuts off the view through the mirror). I think perhaps this spring might be on the high side of the vendor-supplied variance, as other Shine cars sit lower than mine.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Brief Overview*

Brief Overview:
As stated in an earlier post, the Shine Front / Stock Rear / Koni Yellow setup behaves pretty much exactly as Peter (Pyce) describes. It has much, much higher roadholding than stock, appears to be as forgiving as stock, and has roughly stock-ish handling characteristics, only at much higher speeds (meaning that at any given speed, it understeers significantly less than would the stock suspension). The improvement is noticeable at all speeds, but the faster the drive, the more impressive the handling becomes. Ride quality is different from stock (more on this later), but quite acceptable on all but the worst of Boston-area roads; on some of those roads (which, literally and without exaggeration, would lead to road closures in some parts of the country), there's a fair amount of jolting; but in general it is quite livable -- even "comfortable" on most road surfaces.
On a personal note, because I have to drive on the worst roads a fair amount of the time (and because a large part of my car's life seems to be spent ferrying female members of my church congregation to and fro), this setup is in fact a little too harsh for me. The handling capabilities are also too high -- for example, to test out the suspension, I have to drive 25 miles out of town and find lightly trafficked roads with good sightlines; the rest of the time I'm using just a few percent of the car's capabilities. Plus, as mentioned above, these particular springs on my particular car are taller than I would like. Hence I'm considering going back to a milder setup -- but for all of you who don't live in the middle of a frost-heaved, congested city with a 17th-century road layout, I'll lay out my understanding of how this setup works, and you can decide for yourselves if it's for you. (Plus hopefully an understanding of how this suspension works will be of assistance in exploring other setups....)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Overall Roll and Understeer*

Overall Roll and Understeer
In fitting the Shine Front springs, I raised the front of my car by 3/4" (which, according to Peter's model, raised the front roll center by about 1 1/2") while increasing the front spring rate by 74%. Both of these effects work to reduce roll, and the car now rolls considerably less than before -- and that has an interesting effect on the handling.
As explained many pages ago, the stock suspension is designed to roll onto the shoulders of its front tires at fairly low lateral g-forces, and to roll progressively farther the harder you take a corner. This rolling and "adverse cambering" allows understeer to build extremely progressively and safely, so that the driver gets ample and increasing warning that he/she is approaching the cornering limits. Near those limits, the car understeers strongly enough to avoid spinning under lift-throttle (or even light braking) maneuvers, and because the understeer is largely camber-induced, the car still responds to steering inputs even while understeering heavily.
In contrast to what many posts might seem to imply, the stock suspension is very nicely designed for its intended (non-enthusiast) audience, and when equipped with upgraded shocks (a very important caveat!!), it's a very enjoyable, safe suspension for 3/10 - 5/10 driving, not least as it responds obediently to classical trail-braking techniques, rides well on most road surfaces, has characteristics that don't change too much with the weather, and can put a fair amount of power to the road at corner exit. The chief downsides to the stock suspension are that (1) the stock shocks are extremely underdamped for good handling; and (2) the overall setup is simply too slow and too understeering for driving above about 5/10 (which is why so many people on the Vortex complain about it). When fitted with good shocks and driven at moderate speeds, however, the stock suspension is quite enjoyable -- hence when I said the Front Shine setup has stock handling characteristics, only at much higher speeds, I meant that as a compliment.








Because the stock understeer is so heavily induced by roll and adverse camber (as opposed to pure weight-transfer and overloading of the outside front tire), anything that reduces the roll will tend to reduce the understeer. Before Peter's experiments, it was unclear, however, whether reducing the roll by stiffening the front springs would lead to a net increase or a net decrease in understeer: stiffening the front would increase lateral weight transfer, which should increase understeer -- but it would also reduce roll, which would make the understeer lessen.
It now appears that -- if you start with the stock Golf/Jetta IV -- the roll effect is more important than the weight transfer. Peter reports less understeer than stock on his Shine Front Jetta TDI on 16" wheels; I can now report "less" understeer than stock on my Shine-Front GTI 1.8T on 15" wheels. But let me explain why I put "less" in quotation marks:
At the limit, my GTI now understeers very slightly less than it did on stock springs -- I've checked that by taking multiple passes through a series of tight, linked 35mph S-curves that I know well, and noting the steering wheel angle as the car starts to break away. Plus on stock springs, the actual limit had me pretty much plowing straight ahead; on the Shine Front, it's understeering fairly heavily at the limit, but the breakaway is in more of a drift. I've also checked the understeer in the rain on wet highway ramps -- on the stock car, the front emphatically breaks away first; on the Shine Front, it's again more of a 4-wheel drift. I can also get the rear wheels to slide just a bit on dry roads (quietly and smoothly, with a self-correction) by giving the wheel a good hard crank mid-corner; on the stock car, doing something like that would just make the car roll & wallow, without bringing the tail out at all. For all these reasons it seems that the Shine Front car has a slightly smaller absolute amount of understeer than the stock car.
The difference at the limit, however, is not enormous, and in general the rear wheels are not really working all that much harder than they did on the stock car (i.e., this is completely opposite to the impressions people have when they install a rear bar on the stock car).
However -- because the Shine Front limits are so much higher than the stock car's, the understeer at any given speed is noticeably less than before. (That is, the stock understeer at "5/10" is not all that much more than the Shine-Front understeer at "5/10" -- but at a speed where the stock car is at "5/10", the Shine Front car is only at "3/10" -- where the understeer is less.) In following traffic around highway intersections and construction zone chicanes, I'm not moving the wheel as much as I used to. The car does not feel "neutral" in the sense that I can feel the rear wheels moving around (unless I trail brake or do silly things with the steering wheel, as alluded to above), but the chassis overall does feel more obedient -- I turn the wheel, and the car listens much better than it used to do.
As for the roll: this past week was a reminder of why one should feel sorry for the Darters on this forum.







When I first drove the car on its Shine Front springs, the roll reduction was so dramatic that it seemed like the car stayed "absolutely flat!!"; but now that I've had a few miles on it, I notice that it in fact rolls quite a bit -- it just took a while for my senses to recalibrate to the new roll range. (When I go back to a softer setup, it'll probably seem horrendous at first, but then I'll get used to it...) If Peter & company ever work out a roll-meter to test out suspensions, it'll be good to see what the roll angles actually are; for me, it's clear that my own "seat of the pants" is a pretty imprecise, time-varying measure! (As for why one should feel sorry for the Darters (and I used to be a Darter...): we in part defined a "Darter" as a person who wants go-kart handling, and who is forever complaining that his car rolls too much -- well, part of the problem is that one quickly gets used to a roll reduction, and after a while the car doesn't seem so flat any more...)

Theoretical Summary (repeating the above, but in one paragraph):
The car rolls less than before, because of the stiff springs. This reduction in roll reduces the lateral weight transfer at the rear wheels (whose springs are unchanged), which increases the roadholding at the rear. At the front, the reduction in adverse camber outweighs the increase in lateral weight transfer, and front roadholding goes up too. Providentially, with Shine 225 springs, the increase in roadholding at the front appears to match or slightly exceed the increase at the rear, so not only does total roadholding go up, but the overall handling balance remains similar to or slightly more neutral than stock. Because the car still rolls (only less now than before), understeer still sets in progressively and predictably, so it is easy to tell when the car is approaching its limits; however, because overall roadholding has gone up, at any given speed the Shine-Front car is "loafing" relative to the stock car, and thus at any given speed it understeers less.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Sidenotes on Stiffening the Rear*

Sidenotes:

a) My car in its current state no longer 3-wheels (at least not at any sane speed on the stock 15" wheels). That means further increases in ultimate roadholding can be found by stiffening the rear, which will take some of the load off the outside front tire and increase overall front traction. Of course such stiffening will also reduce some of the understeer, which many people on this forum would desire.
b) The full Shine setup uses "180" rear springs (that are probably around 200 lb/in) and a very stiff antiroll bar. Peter and others have found that using both together can lead to a pretty harsh ride -- but as yet nobody on this thread has reported on a back to back comparison between 180 springs/ stock bar vs. stock springs / Shine bar.
c) Dick Shine is perfectly happy to have people mount his rear antiroll bar on a Shine Front / Stock Rear car -- in other words, so long as you have his front springs in the car, you can use his antiroll bar regardless of what rear springs are in there.
d) I asked Dick which approach would he recommend: 180 springs / stock bar or stock springs / Shine bar. He thought about it for quite a while, and finally suggested that he'd probably go with the 180 springs, as overall they "wind up doing more for you than just the bar alone"; his comment there was performance-based, and it's not clear what the ride difference between the two would be (note: Ian (Daemon42) is an adherent of the stock spring / Shine bar approach, and Peter (Pyce) notes that the rear spring rate has a huge effect on ride quality).
e) On a related note, Dick was rather pessimistic about the use of a rear bar in conjunction with stock springs and stock shocks (the standard "first modification" that some tuners advocate); he felt that with stock shocks, the extra torsional spring rate from the rear bar would be poorly controlled, leading to "lots of unpleasant things" happening in a fast bumpy corner. With upgraded shocks, however, he expressed no particular views about the stock spring / rear bar setup.
f) For a personal conjecture (it's only a conjecture, since I've never tried a stock spring / rear bar setup): based on what people have reported in this thread and elsewhere, the Stock Spring / Rear Bar and the Front Shine setups are fundamentally different beasts, for different crowds. The former (when paired with uprated shocks) is probably much more fun, as it engenders a bit of tail-happiness and reduces understeer at all but the highest g-forces. The latter is probably faster, smoother, and more forgiving, as it increases absolute levels of roadholding by basically "stretching" the stock performance envelope to higher g-forces. At some point we've got to get a Koni/ Stock Spring / Rear Bar into Peter's hands, so he can do the back to back comparison, but for now it looks like neither the Stock Spring / Rear Bar nor the Front Shine is a "better" mod; rather, they accomplish different things.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Simplistic, Misleading, Probably Dangerous Rule of Thumb*

Rule of Thumb:
It's always dangerous to attempt to distill subtle physics into a single, simplistic rule of thumb, but for what it's worth, here goes: (and yes, I see all the problems in making this statement, but it might be handy for those trying to understand all this for the first time...)

_Quote »_
"On the Golf/Jetta IV platform, for street use, the front springs control the Cornering Power, and the rear springs and/or rear antiroll bar control the Handling Balance."


Here's the reasoning (and the caveats):
1) In terms of first-hand experience: going up a ridiculous amount in front spring rate (74%) did not give me any additional understeer (in fact, it's ever so slightly less), but the roadholding (the cornering power) is much, much higher than before.
2) In terms of theory: because the stock car 3-wheels, increasing the roll stiffness of the rear stiff further (while leaving the front alone) will not reduce the amount of at-the-limit-roll, and hence will not increase the at-the-limit-roadholding (the cornering power).
3) In contrast, stiffening the front and raising the roll center, will reduce the roll and keep the tires more upright, yielding an overall increase in roadholding.
4) With a sufficiently stiffened front, the car no longer 3 wheels. In this situation, stiffening the rear will increase roadholding (by reducing roll still further, and by taking some of the burden off the outside front wheel), until such time as the inside rear wheel once more lifts off the tarmac. After that, further rear stiffening has no effect on ultimate roadholding.
5) When the car is not 3-wheeling, however (either because it simply cannot, or because it's being driven under the lateral cornering limit), stiffening the rear will reduce understeer. Hence rear stiffening is the primary means of balancing the car.

Notwithstanding the dangerous oversimplification in the above statement, we can use it to roughly assess different setups. For example:
a) suppose a "kit" uses soft, lowered front springs, and a newbie is confused by people claiming the kit has "reduced understeer!!". We can say (simplistically) to the newbie, well, for cornering power you want high, stiff front springs, which the kit doesn't have, but for less understeer below the limit, you want stiffer rear springs and/or bar, which the kit does have. Hence it's a low-performance setup, in that its cornering power is low, but within its modest limits, it probably feels more neutral than stock.
b) or, to compare the Shine-Front vs. Stock / Rear Bar setups: the former has more cornering power, because of the high, stiff front, but its cornering balance is no different from stock; the latter, in contrast, has less understeer than stock (because of the stiffened rear), but no real gain in ultimate roadholding.
c) or if someone is debating whether to install a rear bar or a set of stock-height coilovers, we can ask him/her "Is your goal to increase cornering power, reduce understeer, or both? And if both, in what priority?", and then advise accordingly.
Anyway, it's not a great rule of thumb, but it can be useful (since explaining the physics of it all takes up a lot of time!). If you think it too simplistic, we need never use it -- I'm just suggesting it as a possible explanatory tool.
Cheers - W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Further Notes on the Simplistic Rule of Thumb*

Greetings, Vdubbers!
I've been thinking a bit more about the proposed simplistic rule of thumb (Front springs give you Cornering Power; rear springs/bar give you handling balance), and thought I'd stick my neck out and extend it a little further (after all, what good is theory if it's not used to make predictions that are eventually proved wrong?







). This time we'll go through the reasoning first, and save the punchline for last.

Basic Observation & Subtleties
We'll start with the basic observation underlying this whole part of the thread: that Peter's Shine Front/ Stock Rear/ No Bar setup understeers very slightly less than the stock GTI suspension (but with much greater roadholding). This is an entirely fortuitous result, as it's not something Shine at all had in mind when they designed their spring set (indeed, they kept asking me during my visit there, "When are you going to install a rear bar? Why don't you uprate the rear springs?"....). As mentioned earlier, there's no reason for this result to have occurred: with certain combinations of CG, track, tire size, camber characteristics, etc., etc., a car might understeer more with a higher, stiffer front spring, whereas with other combinations it might understeer less. For a car to wind up with essentially the same handling balance as before with such a drastic change in front springs, well, Peter just got lucky.








Luck is luck, however, and we might as well use it to our advantage. Given that a high, stiff front Shine spring leaves the handling balance more or less unchanged, we can use it to help predict the handling balance of other setups (we could do even better if someone could run a SofSport Front / Stock Rear setup for a while and compare it to stock, which I'll explain in a bit, but we'll just go with the Shine for now). To do that, we have to break the Shine Front phenomenon into two parts -- height and rate.

Height
As GTItraveler's and Peter's experiments have shown, front ride height is "free". When you raise the front end 1/2" above stock (note: my 3/4" raise appears to be an aberration), a number of good things happen: the roll center rises about 1", reducing the net roll couple; the outside front tire sits at a better camber angle under hard cornering (both because of the reduced roll and because of the altered camber curve); there's less tire scrub with wheel travel; and there's less chance of contacting the bump rubbers. All of these effects lead to less understeer and improved roadholding. (To be precise, there's also a slight understeer-increasing effect from the raised roll center, but it's small, and after corner-entry it's swamped out by everything else.)
Thus if you keep the front spring rate the same, lifting the front should decrease the understeer.
(Note: raising the height also gives you "free" benefits in that you get better roadholding and neutrality without degrading the rough-road traction (or ride comfort) in the way that stiff springs and bars do.)

Rate
Rate, in contrast is not at all free. A stiff front spring will reduce roll and keep the outside front tire more upright (purely because of the reduced roll) -- which will tend to reduce understeer -- but it will also shift more weight to the outside front tire ("overloading" it), which tends to increase understeer. A priori, it's impossible to say which effect will dominate in a given situation for a given car (note: for vintage car fans, you get a strong reduction on things like MG's, Triumph TR-2,3,4, Morgans, etc.). But now, thanks to Peter's experiments, we can say for the Golf/Jetta IV:
Because a raised, stiffened front spring essentially leaves the handling balance unchanged (there's a slight understeer reduction from stock, but it's very slight), and because we'd expect the raising to unequivocably give us less understeer, that means the stiffening by itself would probably give us slightly more. Not a whole lot more, but enough to largely counteract the benefits from the raised ride height.
(Or in other words, to all those who have been emailing Peter to tell him he should be having more understeer because of the stiff front springs: you've been (to an extent) right!







The weight transfer due to stiffness appears to be slightly more important than the reduction in roll, and had Peter's ride height stayed unchanged, perhaps he would have noticed more understeer (though my hunch is that it wouldn't have been particularly severe); it's just that the raised ride height more than counterbalanced the weight transfer, and the overall balance went unchanged or slightly more neutral.)
(Explanatory note: this was mentioned before, but the summary statement (below) might be confusing if it's forgotten -- although the stiffening of the front springs appears to cause a slight increase in understeer, it also probably increases (yes, increases) the roadholding in the front end. By stiffening the front, we reduce the weight transfer at the rear, and thus the rear end has better traction than before. By itself, this increased rear traction should give us fairly strong understeer; the fact that we don't see a great increase in understeer suggests that the more upright front tires are in fact giving more traction than before -- it's just that the increase in the front doesn't quite match the increase at the rear, and hence we get a small increase in understeer.)
Summary Sentence: stiffening the front springs on the Golf/Jetta IV (while keeping the ride height constant) will improve roadholding while slightly increasing the understeer (compared to stock).

Putting the Two Together
What follows is all conjectural, so please take it in that spirit(!), but......

Hmmm. Let me first interject something about forgiveness in the Shine Front setup, before we start playing with the extended Rule of Thumb -- please bear with me; it'll make things easier in the end.
Cheers!



_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:21 AM 6-11-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb digression -- Forgiveness*

Here's a description of the forgiveness in the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup, which will be useful in applying the Rule of Thumb:

Forgiveness
This (the Shine Front / Stock Rear) is a very forgiving setup. Indeed, I can see why Peter gave up on the stock rear spring and went to 140 lb/in rears: my car is in fact a little too forgiving. I've thus far been unable to get any lift-throttle tuck-in; perhaps if I really pushed it, some tuck-in would emerge, but in sane street driving, the chassis is not terribly responsive to the throttle (mind you, I've a 150hp 4-cylinder turbo; perhaps a bigger engine might have more of an effect). A few times, I was so dumbfounded by the lack of tuck-in that I dabbed the brakes mid-corner -- and again nothing happened. (If I stabbed the brakes still harder, I'm sure things would have come around! -- but on a light stab, the rears stayed anchored to the road.) Hence one could easily stiffen the rear a fair amount and still have a reasonably forgiving chassis -- Peter's 140 & 150 lb/in rears and Ian (Daemon42)'s Shine Bar + Stock Rear Spring setup come to mind here. If I were to stay with the Shine front, I too would look at trading away some of the forgiveness in return for a bit more throttle sensitivity & less understeer.
That being said, if someone simply wanted a faster setup that would never bite back, this one would be hard to beat.
A different aspect of forgiveness has to do with the nature of the understeer -- as discussed several months ago, on some cars, when the front tires are kept too upright and there are no other tricks used to bring understeer in progressively, strong understeer can be pretty frightening (hence the racer's adage, "oversteer is where the passenger is scared; understeer is where the driver is scared..."). Rest assured that the Shine Front setup is not even remotely near this point. The car still rolls a moderate amount (albeit less than before), and hence the understeer sets in well before the front tires actually lose steering sensitivity -- when you near the limits and the front end starts to wash out, it still listens to the steering wheel, and you can bring things back in line simply by turning the wheel a little harder.
(Or, in theoretical terms: as mentioned earlier, the increase in rear roadholding appears to be roughly proportional to the increase in the front, so the rear stays in line as well as it does in the stock car. Because the car still rolls (albeit less than before), part of the understeer is still camber-induced; as such, it comes into the picture linearly and progressively -- just not as soon or as rapidly than before -- and the car is still steerable even very close to the understeering limits.)
Ok, back to the Rule of Thumb!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SRSS & front bars*

Rule of Thumb -- Conjectural Applications
Ok, let's now play around a bit with the Rule of Thumb, and see what conjectures we come up with. (Once again, all the following are just conjectures -- very dangerous to take too seriously given that our "model" has just two data points (stock & Shine front)!; but we're just having fun here







.)
(I'll repeat the Simplistic Rule of Thumb here

_Quote »_
On the Golf/Jetta IV, the front spring stiffness and ride height controls the Cornering Power (roadholding), whilst the rear spring & bar control the handling balance.


1) How Forgiving is the Full Shine Setup?
Occasionally there are posts from people asking how forgiving / tail-happy is the full Shine SRSS; this question we can now answer quite confidently:
The Shine front springs alone give the car much better roadholding than stock, while retaining essentially stock levels of forgiveness. Putting the rear 180 springs on will make the car much more neutral than before, while somewhat increasing the roadholding still further (the latter, because the Shine-Front car doesn't 3-wheel). If you want to retain stock levels of forgiveness, do not put on the rear springs or bar; if you want much more neutral handling (bearing in mind you'll now have to watch for lift-throttle oversteer, etc.), put on the full spring set.
Because the Shine SRSS spring set alone will give you much more neutral handling (compared with stock), you might not feel an actual need for the rear bar. Hence if you are new to suspension tuning and are not sure exactly how "neutral" a setup you want, you should probably install just the springs (and shocks) first, and add the bar later if you feel the balance is not yet right. (Alternatively (to use Daemon42's setup), install the front springs and rear bar first, and add the rear springs later for more neutrality.)
The combination of Front & Rear Springs plus Shine Bar is probably as close to neutral as you will want for an all-weather street car. It is still (by all reports) safe, with some measure of stabilizing understeer at the limit, but you do need to know what you're doing, and if your experience has thus far been exclusively with stock cars & suspensions, you might not want to go all out on your first mod.

2) Can I put different rear springs on a Shine car?
Given that the Shine-Front car has stock-like balance, while Full-Shine is toward the limit of practical street use, an intermediate spring will probably yield intermediate results. Such is the basis of Peter's experiments with various stock, 140 lb/in, 150, and 180 springs: playing with these rear springs has a small effect on overall roadholding, but a big effect on handling balance
!!!!! SAFETY NOTE !!!!!
An important caveat is to watch the ride height at the rear: the stock spring is, well, stock height, whilst the Shine 180 spring is lowered quite a bit. As related to me by Eli, as you increase the rear spring rate, you have to come down in height; otherwise, there's the potential for rear instability in corners (I'm not sure of the reasons why, but I would conjecture the problem would be on corner entry...). In particular I asked Eli what would happen if I put spacers under a Shine 180 (true rate ~200 lb/in) or 150 (true rate ~170 lb/in) spring to bring it up to ride height -- apparently it would not be a good idea at all!
In any case, it's not much of a practical issue -- most stiffened rear springs are lower than stock -- but it's worth mentioning.

3) Should I put a big front bar on a stock car?
All together, everyone: "NO!!!"








This one's pretty easy, but we can apply the Rule of Thumb to it too: antiroll bars have some slop to them (unlike springs, they don't exert real force until the car's rolled enough to take up the bushing compliances), and they don't change the ride height. So you don't get the gain from ride height that you get with the Shine spring, and thus even if the bar were perfect (no slop), you'd still get increased understeer. But it's worse that that: since street bars only stiffen up after the car's rolled a bit, you get more roll than you would with equivalently stiff springs -- so the car will understeer more than it would with the springs.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SRSS & front bars (Ceilidh)*

Wow, that's a long review. Thank you!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SRSS & front bars (Ceilidh)*

What a poetry again…… 
Winston, I am very glad that now you have these front springs and are experiencing more or less similar things to what I have experienced since page one of this topic. People did not believe me to a point that I was starting not to believe myself anymore, but now you can confirm most of the things and on top of that you can describe them and explain them, which I could not…… Thanks you very much! This had been a great trip so far and especially after your visit to Shine, things are getting even better. Many may think that this topic is at it’s end because it looks like we now have the cake (reasonably comfortable cars) and can eat it too (very good handling characteristics for street use), but I think we are just now starting to see little bit more, little bit further than the first mountain, so it is a beginning of the next step, which would be to try few more things and make few more conclusions, explore little bit in dept how shocks work and how they can be re-valved (optimized) for different use. Also, maybe try few more different springs and see how all this compare to what we have now. It is great that now we know little bit more about true spring rates, so we know that a 150 lb spring gives, we know that 257 lb spring gives, etc. The last two pages had been extremely important at least to me, because from here I know that many things I noticed were not fruits of my imagination or perhaps fruits of the lack in knowledge or experience in understanding the physics in employed here. It had been months in doubts, because it is not easy when you say something and many come back and tell you together that it simply can not be. Ones really can start doubting himself in events like this….. Now at least I know I was not that wrong. Thanks a lot for doing all this, it has really great value to me and I hope someone else can find it useful for their future endeavors…….
I have to go now, but will write few more things later. We have a lot of talking to do (and planning) but let’s take it easy from now on…..


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SRSS & front bars (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Rule of Thumb -- Conjectural Applications
......


Hey Winston, I bet in grad school the most common feedback you got on ur papers was "be more concise"








Again, another great post


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport)*

Alex, Peter, and Turbo,
The truly embarrassing thing is that I'm not even close to finished (Peter said he wanted a full report -- so here's a full report







).
Alex, I'll work on concise some other month -- maybe on a wrapup! In the meanwhile, this section was mainly written for you. Cheers!
- W
4) How should the SofSport compare with the Shine?
This one can be tested as soon as Alexb75 gets his car set up (since Alex seems to go to autocross events with lots of Shine cars in attendance), but let's take a guess for fun:
The main variables are how "linear" are the relations between spring rate and understeer, and between front spring height and neutrality -- that is, if I have a front spring halfway between Shine & stock, will it still handle like stock, or will it have a little more or less understeer? Since we don't know the answer to that question, we'll just assume things are linear; that's almost certainly wrong, but it'll at least get us in the general ballpark.
If Neuspeed's spring ratings are correct (which is said to be the case), and if the stock rear is 125 lb/in (sort of an average of various posted figures, but who really knows?), then the deviations from stock are:
Stock
148 front 125 rear
SofSport
220 front 160 rear -- 49% stiffer front, 28% stiffer rear
Shine
257 front 200 rear -- 74% stiffer front, 60% stiffer rear
Ok, now let's assume linearity and blindly apply the simplistic Rule of Thumb:
Q: Which has better roadholding?
A: the rule of thumb says that the front springs control the Cornering Power, and the Shine is 51% (74/49) farther out on the stiffening spectrum than is the SofSport (or to put it another way, the SofSports provide only 2/3 of the stiffening given by the Shine). Hence on spring rate alone, we'd expect the Shine to have considerably more cornering power. Moreover, the SofSport is reported to ride about 1/2" to 1" lower than the Shine at the front, and front ride height gives us "free" roadholding -- thus the Shine gets an additional boost from spring height, increasing its roadholding superiority.

Q: Which is more neutral?
A: When paired with stock rear springs, both the stock front spring and the Shine (1/2" taller, 74% stiffer) front spring yield approximately the same handling balance. If linearity holds (though to be fair to Neuspeed, I'll keep mentioning that it probably doesn't!), then a stock-handling SofSport spring would be 49% stiffer, and 1/3" (= (49%/74%)* 0.5") taller than stock. But the SofSport spring is not 1/3" taller; instead, it's 1/2" shorter (or 5/6" shorter than ideal), and that gives up the "free" neutrality boost we get from a tall spring, and replaces it with an "all-bad" neutrality/roadholding loss we get from a lowered spring. So on the basis of the front spring alone, the SofSport should understeer more.
Now let's add the rear spring: the Shine Front starts out with stock-like balance, and then adds a very stiff 200 lb/in rear spring (60% stiffer than stock); in contrast, the SofSport starts out with a somewhat more understeering (compared with stock) front spring, and adds a moderately stiff 160 lb/in (28% stiffer than stock) rear spring. So it starts out with more understeer than the Shine, and applies only about half as much (28% vs. 60%) rear stiffening than the Shine -- hence we'd expect it to understeer quite a bit more than the Shine.
Add in the rear bar, which is stiffer in the Shine kit, and the understeer differential increases further.
Does the SofSport understeer more than stock? -- Almost certainly not!!! We don't know how much understeering a 5/6" height deficiency gives us, but judging from Peter & GTItraveler's posts, it's probably a noticeable but not horrendous amount. So a SofSport-Front / Stock Rear car probably understeers a bit more than the stock car, but probably not excessively. If that's the case, then adding 28% stiffer rear springs to the mix will probably shift the handling balance quite a bit towards neutrality -- not nearly so much as does the Shine, but still a considerable amount (please note that Peter has been reporting noticeable handling changes in going from the stock spring to a 140 lb/in 337 spring; at 160 lb/in, the SofSport would be considerably stiffer). Hence we'd expect the SofSport (without a rear bar) to be more neutral than stock, perhaps (to take a wild guess) maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the way between Stock and Shine handling balance.
(Just on a personal note: the more I play with this Rule of Thumb, the more intriguing the SofSport looks to me! Given that I can't use the capabilities of the Shine on the roads that I regularly drive on, the SofSport might be an interesting compromise -- intermediate between Shine & Stock in roadholding, but with less-than-stock understeer.....hmmm, I wonder what the ride quality would be like.....)
Anyway, the simplistic Rule of Thumb suggests how to distinguish between the Shine and SofSport setups. The Shine is definitely more hardcore: it has more cornering power, and it's inherently more neutral. As befits Shine's philosophy, it's probably the highest-performing setup for street use. In contrast, the Rule of Thumb strongly suggests that the SofSport is intended to be a "nice" performance setup: maybe 2/3 of the Shine in sheer cornering power, but only 1/3 of the Shine in basic handling balance (that is, with the SofSport you have the option of increased cornering power with fairly benign/forgiving handling balance; if you want it to be more neutral, however, you can make it so by adding the rear Neuspeed bar). Both suspensions appear to be well-designed -- it's just that the goals are slightly different.

Anyway, once Alex tests his setup against the Shine cars, we can recalibrate the Rule of Thumb.
Later, guys!
- W

_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:37 AM 6-12-2004_

_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:40 AM 6-12-2004_

_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:31 PM 6-12-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:33 PM 6-12-2004_


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (Ceilidh)*

What would also be interesting to see is how Softsport compare to Sport springs since they have same spring rates according to Neuspeed (220/160).


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
4) How should the SofSport compare with the Shine?
...


Thanks for setting me up for what will be my new suspension. I will be installing it next week. Unfortunately, I will only have 4-5 days on the suspension before I go to Europe... so my experience will be limited








So, my progression from Sport to Sofsport (with same spring rate) will be something to watch for. The only problem is that I will be also changing shocks (Bilstein to Koni) which can skew the results... but we will probably have a good idea. 
On your write up about Shine vs. Sofsport comparison... I don't know if I can compare the two very fairly since I will have no RSB with the Sofsport... but will try my best. 
I do NOT beleive the difference is THAT BIG as you described... since I asked Mike about the AutoX improvement when he went from Sofsport to Shine on the same car... and he gained about *"one" *second on the course! which is NOT 2/3 better, more like 1-3% better!!! and that is the MOST important thing to me. 
The best way to measure handling is how FAST can u go around a track with any particular suspension. I dont care about roll center, spring rate, geometry, rear/front balance, etc.... what I care is how FAST the car goes around a track that I attend.... while being forgiving on the roads that I drive in... that's all
We'll know the answer very soon. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by alexb75 at 3:34 PM 6-12-2004_


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (alexb75)*

Winston, thanks for the great input and posts. I would point out that you seem to have overestimated the amount of drop that you get with a SofSport setup-- especially if there are no differences in free spring length and rate as some have said. Let me explain.
I have a 2003 GTI 1.8T which is essentially the same car that you have; although I have 17" wheels and stock tires which will change things somewhat. 
I installed the GolF IV VR6 SofSport springs on my GTI with no RSB, and I used Tokico HP's. For the sake of argument, we will assume that Tokico's are valved approximately the same as Koni Yellow's at 33% stiffness which I think is fair based upon my experience with Koni Yelllows on my SVT Focus.
The change in Front ride heght with the VR6 (part number; there is some dispute as to whether there is any difference in specs for the different part numbers) front springs was a 5/8" lowering. As I mentioned before, this seems to actually have been fromt he removal of the front spacer on my car. Had I kept the front spacer, I would have expected my lowering to be 1/8"-- or essentially stock ride height. For the rear, I used the Golf rear springs (same whether VR6 or 1.8T) and achieved a 1" lowering. According to Neuspeed techs (phone calls, not from Greg), I could have used Jetta Rears to reduce the rear lowering by about 1/4". I have not been able to verify this. However, according to Peter's research, the 1" lowering is beneficial to achieving neutrality without a sacrifice in handling.
So, what's the result. I expect that I get about 75% of the Shine handling with A LOT of additional comfort from the use of SofSports and the Tokico's. From my butt-o-meter, the Tokico HP's are an almost perfect valving match to the SofSports, but there is the long-term durability question. I might expect the Koni's or KYB AGX's to ultimately be a better choice, but I'm happy with the Tokico's. Also, I would be that Bilstein's would be excellent as well. The SofSport setup is definitely much better and more neutral than stock with very little loss in comfort. I think it is the perfect compromise for a mostly daily-driven car. I too, do most of my driving in congested city or straight insterstate driving, and the SofSport suspension is way more than I need. The Shine would be even more overkill, but it is obviously the best "handling" setup, but it's probably not the best "performing" setup for a daily-driver.
I'll post more later.
PMB


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_....you seem to have overestimated the amount of drop that you get with a SofSport setup-- especially if there are no differences in free spring length and rate as some have said.
PMB 

Hello PMB,
Thank you very much for the very detailed reply! Your positive experiences with the SofSport have been extremely interesting to read about, and your Tokico vs. Koni comparisons are very helpful to everyone.
Regarding the SofSport drop -- I made a brain-fade typo on the earlier post (when I typed 1" to 1 1/2" difference between the Shine and SofSport) -- thank you for pointing it out! The post should have said 1/2" to 1", and I'll edit it as soon as I complete this reply.
Notwithstanding the typo, however, I would still really appreciate it if you could please post a wheel-center-to-fender-lip measurement on your car, as I'm trying to determine just how much of a drop I'd get if I tried the same setup on my car.
As for why I'm asking for a wheel-to-fender measurement, and as for why I don't simply take your word for how much the drop will be, it's not that I distrust your measurements (not at all!







) -- rather, I distrust VW's posted specs.
To explain: when I look on VW.com and check out the specifications for different Golf/GTI/Jetta models, they all appear to have the same ride height. Hence when a person tells me I'd have "X" drop with a given spring, I should be able to take that at face value. Unfortunately, however, that doesn't appear to be the case:
1) Several months ago, near the start of this thread, Peter and I measured a whole bunch of different Golf & Jetta ride heights. Peter went to a California dealership and checked out new cars, whilst I took a yardstick and measured all the Golfs/Jettas parked in my neighborhood (Boston on-street parking: lots of 2000-04 VWs!). What we found was that "stock height" is a very nebulous concept.







Even within a given model year, but especially when we compare across model years, there's a lot of variation in both front and rear ride height -- up to 3/4" in some cases (and no, it's not a matter of settling over time -- some of the 2000 cars are pretty high....). Because your GTI 1.8T is a different model year from mine, I have no confidence at all that we were starting from the same "stock" ride height. (There's another GTI 1.8T on my block, and my back is 1/2" lower, while my stock front was 3/8" higher.)
2) The other thing we found was that tire & wheel differences, not to mention inflation pressure differences, had a significant impact on the fender - to - ground measurement. Thus two cars can have the same suspension ride height, but the fender-to-ground measurements can differ just because of the tires. That's not an issue when someone measures his/her own car before & after to judge the drop, but it makes it really hard to compare measurements off of different cars.
3) The upshot is that the wheel center - to fender lip measurement is a far more useful number for comparing different cars via the internet. This measurement doesn't care at all what tires or wheels are used, and it allows us to directly compare different spring sets.
4) As for the SofSport vs. Shine: PhatVW posted wheel-to-fender front ride heights of about 14 1/2" on a VR6 with SofSports; Peter has 15" wheel-to-fender on his Shined TDI; and I have 15 1/2". So the variance seems to be between 1/2" and 1".
5) Finally, I'm really hoping that a SofSport VR6 front spring will put me back at my old "stock" level -- but to be sure, I'd really appreciate your measuring the wheel-to-fender distance! If it's the right distance, great!! But if it's not, I'll have to go scrounging for the spacer (which, by the way, my car did not have).
Thanks PMB, -- all the best!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (Ceilidh)*

I am looking at the Bentley Manual for 99 - 02 VW (includes yours and mine). For whoever has it, I am at page 40-11, Front Suspension and Drive Axles..... So, there is the exploded view of the front suspension strut assembly with all the parts shown and named. There is nothing that even looks like spacer, so I do not understand where this "spacer" you all talking about is coming from? Ok, there is (#7) something called "Spring Plate" that can be acting like a spacer, but is that really the thing? For example, below it says (about this Spring Plate) that "only vehicles with Heavy Duty suspension have it!" and also it says that the part number of that piece, if relevant, can be found on vehicle data label in luggage compartment or owner's manual.......... Is this then the "spacer" that some remove and some do not, and some have some do not? Let's try to figure this out, so Winston can get this part and then combine it with the VR6 Sofsport fronts and remain as close as possible to stock ride height.... Thanks everybody.


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

pyce - my website doesn't let me link pictures to webpages, so I sent you an email with a pic of the spacer.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ I am looking at the Bentley Manual for 99 - 02 VW (includes yours and mine). For whoever has it, I am at page 40-11, Front Suspension and Drive Axles..... So, there is the exploded view of the front suspension strut assembly with all the parts shown and named. There is nothing that even looks like spacer, so I do not understand where this "spacer" you all talking about is coming from? Ok, there is (#7) something called "Spring Plate" that can be acting like a spacer, but is that really the thing? For example, below it says (about this Spring Plate) that "only vehicles with Heavy Duty suspension have it!" and also it says that the part number of that piece, if relevant, can be found on vehicle data label in luggage compartment or owner's manual.......... Is this then the "spacer" that some remove and some do not, and some have some do not? Let's try to figure this out, so Winston can get this part and then combine it with the VR6 Sofsport fronts and remain as close as possible to stock ride height.... Thanks everybody.

The spacer is on 01+... the part# is 1J0412311A.


----------



## NOVAdub (Jul 28, 2003)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ Is this then the "spacer" that some remove and some do not, and some have some do not?
If it matters at all SRS told me to remove the spacer when installing their kit.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup*

We're going to wrap up our conjectural musings now, with a look at a hypothetical "lowering kit", but first let's expand and restate our simplistic Rule of Thumb to cover a wider variety of cases (in so doing, we'll approximate even more than before):

_Quote »_
Front Springs:
1) When spring height is held constant, a stiffened spring rate gives you more Cornering Power, without significantly changing the Handling Balance.
2) When spring rate is held constant, a raised spring height gives you both more Cornering Power and a more neutral Handling Balance. Conversely (when spring rate is held constant), a lowered spring height gives you more understeer, and less Cornering Power.
Rear Springs & Bars:
Let "Before" = a car before you add stiffer rear springs or a rear bar;
Let "After" = a car after you've added the stiffer springs or the rear bar.
3) At cornering G-forces where the "Before" car was still on 4 wheels, stiffening the rear will give a more neutral Handling Balance.
4) If the "Before" car never 3-wheels, then stiffening the rear will also increase the Cornering Power.
5) At cornering G-forces where the "Before" car was already 3-wheeling, stiffening the rear will affect neither the Handling Balance nor the Cornering Power.

(Reminder: These are rough generalities, so take them with a grain of salt!! (After all, the acronym from Rule of Thumb is "ROT"!))
Note: if you're just joining this thread, scroll up a page or two to see the experiments & theory that led to the above rules of thumb -- otherwise, they're going to seem "wrong"....


Final Conjectural Example:
5) Ok, so what does the Rule of Thumb suggest about a hypothetical lowering kit that has 130 lb/in springs all around, and that drops the front by, say, 1.5"?
(Somewhere, sometime on this forum, I think I saw posted stats like those above -- but let's just call it a hypothetical case!)
Well, let's see.








By Rule of Thumb #1: the lower-than-stock front spring rate should reduce the Cornering Power (by allowing more roll).
RoT #2: the 1.5" front lowering should further reduce Cornering Power, while increasing the understeer (again by allowing roll -- until it rolls onto the bumpstops, this car will roll a lot!).
RoT#3, 4, 5: by themselves, the rear springs don't add a lot of spring rate, so they don't shift the handling balance that much (slightly more neutrality, but not a whole lot).
Not very impressive so far, eh?








What if we add a big rear bar? Here we have to get more subtle: the stock car already goes onto three wheels at the limit, and if we were to swap in the front 130 lb/in springs, it would three wheel even earlier (because the soft, owered front springs are even less effective than stock at keeping the platform flat). So what happens when we add the bar to the lowered car?
RoT #4: Since this lowered car (even without the bar) already 3-wheels, adding the bar does nothing to increase the ulitimate Cornering Power. Hence the Cornering Power (which was reduced by the front springs) remains low.
RoT #5: At cornering speeds where the bar-less car was already three-wheeling, the bar makes very little difference -- all it does is fly the inside rear wheel a little higher, and there's no significant additional weight transfer (even on the bar-less car, the outside wheel was already carrying 100% of the rear axle weight). Hence the Handling Balance, which was shifted towards increased understeer by the lowered front springs, remains heavily understeering at the (low) limit.
RoT #3: But at lower speeds, where the bar-less car was on 4 wheels, the additional rear bar does shift more weight onto the outside rear wheel, which does reduce the understeer. Indeed, because the front end is so soft, a big rear bar can shift quite a bit of the lateral weight transfer rearwards, giving a tail-happy handling balance at low speeds.
So what would this car be like to drive, if equipped with a big rear bar? In terms of raw understeer and roadholding (Cornering Power), it's kind of interesting: at low to moderate speeds (more accurately, in mild to moderate cornering), the car can be pleasantly neutral, with the tail sliding out relatively easily on trail braking or abrupt steering motions. The inside rear wheel would pick up quite easily and dramatically at even low g-forces, which looks very impressive to people following behind. Because the cornering power is very low (on OEM tires, it'd be even lower than a stock car's), the car approaches its cornering limits very early on, which makes it feel very "fast" to an untrained driver. And towards those limits, there's a pretty dramatic shift to greater-than-stock understeer (particularly if the car rolls onto its front bumpstops), which stabilizes things and reduces the chances of spinning.
Hmmm. You know, I used to wonder if a real company would actually be so foolish as to come out with a suspension with the sorts of rates and drops cited above -- but now I'm beginning to think there might be a method to the madness.







Let's consider for a moment what this car would feel like, if driven in an enthusiastic but untrained manner:
If you hurl the car into a corner with a sharp jerk of the steering wheel (maybe adding a short hard stab on the brakes, because you've read about "trail braking" and are not really sure how to do it...), the car will sharply turn-in (because of the rear bar, and because of all the static negative camber from the dropped front end) and the rear will whip around in a fun little slide. As the slide progresses into mid-corner and the suspension begins to load up, the inside rear wheel lifts up, to the amazed approval of your buddies driving behind you ("Dude, I'm serious!! It was like a foot off the ground!!!"), and then the understeer comes in with a wallop to keep you from spinning ("I can't believe I saved it! It was, like, coming around and I just barely caught it!"). At corner exit, the car's rolled over onto the outside front bumpstop (which further stabilizes the car via increased understeer), sending jolts and vibrations into the steering wheel and making you feel like you're going really fast, and then the rear end comes back down and you're back on the throttle, grinning like a madman. Fun, eh?
In short, if you wanted to design a suspension that gave sensations of speed and "good handling" to untrained drivers, but which in fact had low limits and a ton of ultimate understeer to keep said drivers from getting killed, this might not be a bad way to go. There are a few downsides, of course -- aside from being lower-than-stock in true performance, this suspension would be pretty rough riding and hard on strut bearings (from hitting the bumpstops), as well as potentially treacherous on slick roads (from reaching the cornering limits before the understeer-inducing roll can set in). Plus there's the whole ethical issue of selling a "performance suspension" that's low performance and which actively encourages poor driving technique -- but that's marketing, and if people have fun with these setups, perhaps that's alright.... In any case, a car set up like this can (for some people) be quite fun to drive around.
Anyway, more on the "Shine Front" (I still owe Peter a report on the ride comfort) -- have a good weekend, everyone!
- Ceilidh


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup (Ceilidh)*

Captain - Got the pix, thanks! Will post it later, but anyway the spacer is NOT in the Bentley Manual I haveas it was not in the manual opened on the picture next to the parts.... Thanks again, now Winston will know what to look for...
Alex - Mine is 2002 and I did not have the spacer, so perhaps I do not know if all VW 01+ have that thing....
NOVA - HE will need the spacer for his Sofsport fronts coming as to keep the height as close to stock as he can. Shine is tall enough and does not need spacer....
Winston, great posts and I have few things ot ask you and to comment, but have to go now.... we will talk later.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup (pyce)*

For what its worth, my car came with the spacers 03 gti. I took them out, I think I have them in the garage .


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex - Mine is 2002 and I did not have the spacer, so perhaps I do not know if all VW 01+ have that thing....


Well, maybe it's only on GTI or some engines only, or maybe they took it out when you installed ur first suspension (dont remember what it was, H&R or something)?!


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup (alexb75)*

Winston, I will try and measure the wheel center to lip for you tomorrow. I forgot as well that I lowered the tire pressures on my car right around the time I did the install as the increae in temperature had dramatically increased the tire pressures. IIRC, they were about 42psi F and R and I lowered them to 34psi F and R. This probably accounts for at least an 1/8" maybe more of the lowering. I hadn't thought about that before.
PMB


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on ??? Setup (4dBunny)*

Thanks very much, PMB!!
- W


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey Ceilidh,
Grad school is busy as hell, but my spare time is spent here








Well, I have a half-a$$ setup right now, mostly because of the fact that I spent my money on different setups and have none left right now. I have Bilstein Sport + Neuspeed Sport (which is the same spring rate as Sofsport with 1" more lowering), and right now no swaybar. So, seemingly I do suffer from lower roll effect, which I have not been able to experience personally. One thing though: I *"LIKE"* the lowered (NOT SLAMMED) look and whenever I look at my car parked in a parking lot, or on a street it brings me joy!  So, I am willing to sacrifice "some" handling for looks and to be honest I am still not sure if the roll-center affects handling as much as it's been talked about. I have 2 fingers gap front and a little less in the rear, the car is completely balanced (same height front/rear). 
I first came on here and was told that H&R cupkit is very nice riding and very good handling setup. So, I got H&R cupkit, which dropped the car 2”, the setup was fairly soft compared to my current suspension. After I got more into vortex and because of reading that Lowering thread (the sticky thread) I got so scared driving my car because of the always talked about (and IMO exaggerated) lower roll-center, I removed the suspension and went back to stock (cost me $200)







. I immediately regretted it and got _*“VERY SUSPICIOUS”*_of Shine claims and others on these threads that the stock suspension outperforms lowered suspensions. 
My next step was to either put that suspension back on or get another one. H&R cupkit, although offered better handling than stock but still wasn’t good enough for my track days, I also had some front swaybar rubbing, and a bouncy ride. So, decided to get another setup.
My research of almost 6 months took me to Neuspeed Sport + Bilstein Sport combo. I was told here on vortex that the Bilstein is fairly nice riding and my local Neuspeed dealer also said that Bilstein rides nicer than Koni. I then drove one with rear Neuspeed 28mm swaybar in an AutoX and was sold right away. That car “FOR SOME REASON” also was riding fairly well. 
After getting Neuspeed sport + Neuspeed valved Bilstein Sport… I immediately felt a great improvement over stock and my previous H&R cupkit. The car was finally could be called on rails (still no swaybar). I took it to one Auto-X event, and two track events and even my driving instructor was very impressed with the handling. 
The car sill has understeer but it is VERY EASILY controllable. Body roll is much less, dive and squat almost gone and turn-in is VERY fast, the car responds to steering movement instantly and the emergency lane change on highway is absolutely amazing. One thing I don’t like very much is the overly progressive nature of the spring. Contrary to lot of people’s claims that the progressive springs one installed are not progressive anymore… this setup feels like it. As I explained in another thread:
“While putting weight on each corner, it goes down fairly easily up to a point and then it gets much stiffer. Also when cornering there’s a definite change in the way the weight transfers depending on the amount of cornering force. I actually do not like it very much, since it’s a little unpredictable: while taking a long highway exit, the more you push it, the more the car goes down on the outside… so much that you think you’re gonna lose control and back off. However, if you push it even more, the car stays were it was and the Hard winding of the springs takes over (I am not talking about bottoming out). So, I can tell that (to me) there’s a 2-stage of spring stiffness and the difference is quite dramatic and may not be the best for handling-only conscious people.”
Now, ride varies so much on this setup that I think I am losing my mind. One day, it’s very nice riding and another day bouncing all over the place very harsh riding. I have pretty stiff sidewall Pirelli Pzero 225/45/17 tires, so that could also contribute, I definitely have to set the PSI below 35 though. Overall, the ride is NOT nice enough (for me) on the streets, and even on the nice riding days, the suspension just is NOT FORGIVING







, and you literally feel *EVERY *joint and bump on the streets with no exception. That’s why I am in the quest of finding a nice riding setup that handles as well as mine and another reason why I have not bought a rear swaybar to complete my setup since my setup may change completely based on my findings. 

_Modified by alexb75 at 3:58 PM 2-8-2004_

Awesome! Thanks for the great feedback on different setups. My truck rides harsh and very unstable of bumps, potholes and uneven pavement. On the track, just awesome...but everyday, forget it.
I don't want to do the same thing to the Golf as I drive it 150 miles per day. I do want to make it handle awesome...and I'm thinking about what you have currently. My car is a TDi by the way. I'm thinking of the Neuspeed coils with the Bilstein Sports...sounds like a great plan...and since I'm on the freeway for 100 miles of that 150, I think I really like the idea of being able to "flick the wheel" and change lanes instantly if need be. I can't tell you how much road debris I've already hit because I just couldn't get the suspension to react fast enough....darn lawnmower springs!
Also, I'm running 205/55/16 tires. Maybe it will ride even better and still handle well?
Sam


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
I do NOT beleive the difference is THAT BIG as you described... since I asked Mike about the AutoX improvement when he went from Sofsport to Shine on the same car... and he gained about *"one" *second on the course! which is NOT 2/3 better, more like 1-3% better!!! and that is the MOST important thing to me. 
_Modified by alexb75 at 3:34 PM 6-12-2004_

Hi Alex!
Just a belated thank you for your post & comments -- we're really looking forward to hearing how your SofSports work out!
Regarding the differential between Shine & SofSport -- I might have been misleading, so let me try to clarify







: the Shine is not "2/3 better"; rather, if you take Stock as one endmember, and the Shine as the other, then the SofSport is 2/3 of the way towards the Shine (closer to Shine than to Stock) in predicted roadholding. That is, if the Stock car can pull 0.79g on a skidpad, and a Shine 0.91 g (these are just random numbers as an example; I don't know what the true skidpad figures would be), then we'd expect the SofSport to pull 0.87g. Or to put that in percentages, the Shine would be .91/.87 = 4.6% "better" in roadholding (in this hypothetical example). How much of a lap time improvement would that give you? On a skidpad (where you're cornering all-out the entire time), it'd give you 4.6% better speed. But on an autocross, you're spending some of your time going straight and/or transitioning between corners, so the lap time improvement would be less than that. So a 1%-3% lap time improvement seems reasonable.
(If you're wondering where the above numbers come from: the .79g and the .91g are just complete guesses; the difference between the two is 0.12g; if the SofSport gives 2/3 of the improvement between stock and Shine, then if would give 2/3 of 0.12g additional roadholding, which is 0.08g. Hence, in this hypothetical example, the SofSport would be predicted to yield 0.79g + 0.08g = 0.87g roadholding.)
Of course, the above is if the relation between roadholding and stiffening is linear -- and it almost certainly isn't. In most situations like this one, we'd expect diminishing returns, so that another 10% of stiffening doesn't give you 10% of improved roadholding. Thus our Rule of Thumb probably (as you suggest) somewhat over-estimates the roadholding improvements you get from stiffer springs (but at least it's a start....).
Anyway, the real proof is in the pudding, as they say! These theoretical musings are just that - musings until we can get some real data. So once again, we look forward to what you experience with your SofSports!
- W


_Modified by Ceilidh at 8:52 PM 6-13-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (yosemitesamiam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yosemitesamiam* »_
Awesome! Thanks for the great feedback on different setups. My truck rides harsh and very unstable of bumps, potholes and uneven pavement. On the track, just awesome...but everyday, forget it.
I don't want to do the same thing to the Golf as I drive it 150 miles per day. I do want to make it handle awesome...and I'm thinking about what you have currently. My car is a TDi by the way. I'm thinking of the Neuspeed coils with the Bilstein Sports...sounds like a great plan...and since I'm on the freeway for 100 miles of that 150, I think I really like the idea of being able to "flick the wheel" and change lanes instantly if need be. I can't tell you how much road debris I've already hit because I just couldn't get the suspension to react fast enough....darn lawnmower springs!
Also, I'm running 205/55/16 tires. Maybe it will ride even better and still handle well?
Sam

Hey Sam... wait for my report at the end of next week as I am changing my setup to Koni+Neuspeed Sofsport. Will tell u how turn-in changes. From what I was told, and seen, Bilstein in general has better turn-in... but will know for sure next week.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Rule of Thumb on SofSport) (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hi Alex!
Just a belated thank you for your post & comments -- we're really looking forward to hearing how your SofSports work out!
Regarding the differential between Shine & SofSport -- I might have been misleading, so let me try to clarify







: the Shine is not "2/3 better"; rather, if you take Stock as one endmember, and the Shine as the other, then the SofSport is 2/3 of the way towards the Shine (closer to Shine than to Stock) in predicted roadholding. That is, if the Stock car can pull 0.77g on a skidpad, and a Shine 0.89 g (these are just random numbers as an example; I don't know what the true skidpad figures would be), then we'd expect the SofSport to pull 0.85g. Or to put that in percentages, the Shine would be .89/.85 = 4.7% "better" in roadholding (in this hypothetical example).
The real improvement would depend on how much better the Shine is than Stock -- and nobody's reported any skidpad measurements on that.
Of course, the above is if the relation between roadholding and stiffening is linear -- and it almost certainly isn't. In most situations like this one, we'd expect diminishing returns, so that another 10% of stiffening doesn't give you 10% of improved roadholding. Thus our Rule of Thumb probably (as you suggest) over-estimates the roadholding improvements you get from stiffer springs (but at least it's a start....).
Anyway, the real proof is in the pudding, as they say! These theoretical musings are just that - musings until we can get some real data. So once again, we look forward to what you experience with your SofSports!
- W

Thanks Winston... this totally makes sense now. 2/3 better was making me confused. I REALLY wish I could have tested those for longer since I am going to Denmark for an exchange program in 10 days and will only be able to test the new setup for a few days... but will keep u all posted.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Final Sum-Up*

Hello again, Everyone,
I've had a nice long lull at work this past week (hence the lengthy posts), but it all ends tomorrow morning. Thus I'll give a "data dump" to finish up the report I promised Peter on the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup. It'll all be in a jumble (sorry about that), but in gross summary:
1) The shocks have a bigger effect on handling than do the springs: when the Konis are dialed back to full soft on this setup, the handling is pretty awful (and when they're stiffened, it's great!). People who fit stock shocks to stiff springs are basically wasting their money.
2) Traction at corner exit is a problem with this setup.
3) Handling precision is excellent, but most of that seems to be due to the shocks.
4) Turn-in is ok, but not at all great. I think that's due at least in part to the high roll center and high front ride height.
5) The ride quality is pretty good, but it does turn out to be much harsher than stock. The culprit here are the shocks and the "pitch" motions induced by the mismatched springs. To curb the pitch, I have to dial the shocks up, and that significantly degrades the ride.
6) It's possible (emphasis: possible) that a better matched spring set (softer front, stiffer rear) might allow for a much better ride, by eliminating pitch and thus permitting softer damper settings. It's also possible that it won't work this way at all -- but it might be worth an experiment.

Also, for anyone whose eyes glazed over trying to track the changing "Rule of Thumb", the final iteration is (if you care at all) the one I currently feel most confident about. It's repeated here, in case any of you find it useful in the future:

_Quote »_
Current Rule of Thumb for Golf/Jetta IV Suspension, based on Peter (Pyce)'s experiments to date:
Front Springs:
1) When spring height is held constant, a stiffened front spring rate (on the Golf/Jetta IV) gives you more Cornering Power, without significantly changing the Handling Balance.
2) When spring rate is held constant, a raised front spring height (on the Golf/Jetta IV) gives you both more Cornering Power and a more neutral Handling Balance. Conversely, shortening the front spring degrades both Cornering Power and Handling Balance.
Rear Springs & Bars:
Let "Before" = a Golf/Jetta IV before you add stiffer rear springs or a rear bar;
Let "After" = a Golf/Jetta IV after you've added the stiffer springs or the rear bar.
3) If -- and only if -- the "Before" car never lifts the inside rear wheel, then stiffening the rear (via springs or bar) will increase the Cornering Power.
4) However, if the "Before" car lifts the inside rear wheel under hard cornering, then stiffening the rear will not increase the ultimate Cornering Power.
5) Neither will rear stiffening affect the Handling Balance at cornering speeds (or g-forces) where the "Before" car was already lifting the rear wheel.
(Note that a Stock Golf/Jetta IV lifts its inside rear wheel under hard cornering, whilst a Shine Front/ Stock Rear car (apparently) does not.)
6) However, at lower speeds (or g-forces), where the "Before" car was cornering on 4 wheels, stiffening the rear will give a more neutral Handling Balance.


The next posts are the "data dump", primarily for Peter.











_Modified by Ceilidh at 9:56 PM 6-13-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Data Dump -- last handling details*

Miscellaneous Handling Details for Shine Front / Stock Rear setup

Springs are Wasted if Shocks are Too Soft
At one point in my experiments, I dialed back the front shocks to full soft (the rears were at 3/8 turn). Pretty much all the handling improvements disappeared -- in place of great handling, there was lurching, wallowing, rolling, imprecision, and understeer. In many respects, the handling with Shine Fronts / full-soft Konis was greatly inferior to that of Stock Fronts / 3/8-turn Konis.
(Note that even at full soft, the Konis are stiffer than stock shocks. If someone were to install the stiff Shine springs together with the even softer stock shocks, the handling would be just awful.)
Overall, I now agree with people who say the shocks have a bigger effect on handling than do the springs: upgrading springs without upgrading the shocks would seem to be a waste of money.

Traction at Corner Exit
Ian (Daemon42) will like this one







. A significant flaw to the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup is the inability to get power down to the road while cornering hard. My 195/65-15 Goodyear LS tires don't help much here, but compared with the stock car, the Shine-Front suspension has a lot more trouble with the inside front wheel spinning on acceleration (it's very noticeable at T-junctions and other places where I need to turn and accelerate at the same time). On dry roads, with my rather sedate driving style, it's an occasional irritation, but on wet roads the traction control cuts in surprisingly early. For me, this is not a major issue, but it should be noted.
(If you're interested in why traction's a problem, Ian's website explains the theory very well -- basically, there's so much weight transfer at the front of the Shine Front car that the inside wheel is going unloaded; hence it has trouble transmitting power to the road in a corner....)
Adding a rear bar or stiffer rear springs (e.g., the full SRSS kit) would help considerably here.

Handling Precision
Steering response and precision are up a considerable amount compared to the stock car w/Konis, and essentially night & day better than the stock car with stock shocks -- but it's not clear to me how much of this is the spring, and how much is the shocks. In going to the Shine Front, I had to crank up the Konis from 3/8 turn front & rear to 1 3/8 Front and 3/4 Rear (I'll explain why some other time), and I think a lion's share of the new precision comes from the much stronger damping. Then again, the stock springs couldn't deal with that much damping (things got overdamped, and very dead feeling), so I guess it's all part of the package. In any case, the combination of strong springs and strong damping leads to a significantly more precise and stable steering sensation -- at the highway construction chicanes (rough pavement, big bumps, sudden camber changes, concrete walls, and abrupt lane changes), I have to put much less thought and effort into guiding the car through. Compared with the stock car w/Konis (which was already pretty good), the Shine Front car is bounced around less, and it responds more quickly and neatly to steering inputs.
(As for theory -- pretty straightforward: the car moves around much less because of the stiff shocks and springs, causing less bump steer, roll steer, compliance steer, etc, which reduces the amount of steering correction needed, while putting more of the steering effort into turning the car (as opposed to swaying, heaving, floating, etc.).)

Turn-In
Here's a mild disappointment: Darters will not like this setup. When I first drove away from Shine's shop with the 225 Front Springs installed, for a moment I actually thought the turn-in was less sharp than on the stock springs(!). After a few miles, I realized my mistake: on the stock car, even with Konis (though the effect is much more marked on the stock shocks), when you first turn the steering wheel, the car "falls over" onto the outside wheel, and then takes a set; during that falling over phase, it feels like the car is turning in, but in reality things are unsettled until it actually takes a set. With the stiff front springs (even on a mild damper setting), the turn-in is much more linear; the front tires start working almost right away, so there's no period of false turn-in, and no period of "falling over".
That being said, the turn-in with Shine Front / Stock Rear is solid, linear, predictable -- and not terribly sharp. There's a slightly "heavy" feeling at initial turn in, and while the nose never lags the steering motion (it's not actually "bad"), neither does the nose eagerly dive into the corner.
Theory: in hindsight, the dull turn-in should have been expected. My car was raised 3/4" by the Shine front springs, which (judging from Peter's modeling) raised my roll center by 1 1/2". The raised front ride height also reduced the static negative camber on my front wheels. Initial turn-in is greatly controlled by camber and roll center heights, and both these changes act to degrade the turn-in. Hence my steering now has less initial "bite".
Fitting stiffer rear springs or a bar will probably not affect the very first instant of turn-in (while the car is still level, spring & bar rates don't have much of an effect), but it should make the rest of the corner entry better.
Fitting better tires (remember, I'm on 195/65-15 Goodyear LS!) would probably sharpen things up considerably.
Please note that a lowered setup will likely have better initial turn-in (much lower roll center, much more static negative camber), followed by the front end washing out as roll and understeer set in.
That's the last of the handling. Now for the ride comfort....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings*

Ride Comfort

Backdrop:
Peter (Pyce) started experimenting towards the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup for essentially two reasons: (1) he wanted a better ride than he had on a full SRSS suspension; and (2) he wanted more forgiving handling (the SRSS is not "unsafe", but it has traded away much of the stock car's forgiveness in return for roadholding and greatly increased responsiveness & neutrality).
The forgiveness came quite fortuitously: the Shine Front setup has essentially the stock car's handling balance, albeit with much higher limits (meaning that at any given speed, it feels more neutral than stock, and yet its ultimate handling balance is still just as forgiving).
The ride has evidently improved because (1) of the use of Konis in place of Bilsteins, and (2) because the rear suspension uses relatively soft springs and no bar.
On the shock issue, we pretty much have to take Peter's word for it, as only he has tried Bilsteins and Konis on the same exact car, tires, and springs (though Alex will soon come close), but on the rear springs, his experience matches those of Daemon42 and OldmanTDI.
For myself (Ceilidh), I can add something on the shocks, and I have a conjecture to make about the springs.

Konis vs. Bilsteins
While at Shine's shop, I asked Dick Shine why he exclusively specs Bilsteins for his suspensions. His reply was interesting: he said that "on the stiffer springs" used by SRSVW, they have to crank the Konis up to very close to full stiff, in order to get the performance they need -- and "on the strongest springs", full stiff on the Konis is sometimes not stiff enough. In contrast, the Bilsteins work fine.
Until someone posts the results of a shock dyno test, the above statements are the best indication we have that a Bilstein is close to or even above a "full-stiff" Koni in stiffness. And that has a big implication for ride comfort:
At full-stiff, the Konis on my car give a very firm ride. It's not unlivable: if I were 22 again, I'd probably love its "sporty feel" -- but it's very, very firm, especially on the sharp impacts that have been the bugbear on this thread. More to the point, when I dial the shocks back to a softer setting, the ride comfort is much, much better.
Hence if your concern is primarily for performance, you might not see much benefit from going with the Konis: if you have to dial them up to close to full-stiff for best handling, then you're going to have a firm ride. The Konis might be a bit more comfortable on the sharpest impacts because of their "slower" action (discussed at length many pages ago), but full-stiff is pretty stiff, and probably not all that much different from the Bilsteins (Peter can give the final word here). The younger, racier drivers would call this shock setting "comfortable" (it's actually much better-feeling than an underdamped, bouncy ride), which would account for all the posted reports of "great ride comfort on Bilsteins!", but there's really no comparison between a full-stiff Koni (or Bilstein) and a comfort-tuned Koni; the latter is much more comfortable (which would account for the people reporting better ride comfort on coilovers -- the better coilovers are probably tuned to match the shocks to the springs).
So let's go back to almost the very first post on this thread: Peter tried a friend's car that had Bilsteins on a stock suspension, and he reported "30% of the handling benefit" of a Shine, in return for 70% of the Shine's ride harshness. This first observation (from many months ago!) now makes perfect sense:
When my GTI still had stock springs, I had fantastic ride comfort with the Konis set at 3/8 turn front & rear (about 21% stiff at the front, 18% rear). It was busier than stock, but it soaked up bumps extremely well while still offering excellent handling. In contrast, full-stiff was extremely firm on stock springs, and much, much less comfortable on bad bumps (though it handled better on smooth roads). Thus if Bilsteins are like full-stiff Konis, then they're going to be excellent handling -- but mediocre-riding -- on a stock car.
How about on a Shine car -- would Koni's give a better ride there?
Well, on Shine Front springs, my car is currently set up with 1 3/8 turn (80%) front Konis; when set at full stiff, the ride was a little harsher, but not by a whole lot. Hence if Bilsteins are like full-stiff Konis, they probably wouldn't be all that different at the front (with the usual caveat that Konis are better-riding on sharp impacts).
The difference, however, is at the back: at full-stiff, the rear Konis would give a very harsh ride on my current stock springs. Hence it looks like the big ride comfort gain you get with the Konis comes from the ability to use softer rear shock settings in conjunction with softer rear springs. (And no, you can't mix front Bilsteins with rear Konis -- Peter tried that, and never found a setting that had the two shocks working together.)

_Quote »_
In summary: for best handling, Konis and Bilsteins are probably very similar in ride comfort (except perhaps on sharp impacts). But for best ride comfort, the Konis give the potential for a much softer ride, in particular by allowing you to use softer rear shock settings in conjunction with softer rear springs.



Pitching Problems
This one's hard to explain, but in some ways it's at the core of the whole ride issue, so I'll do my best:
If you look at Koni posts on the Vortex, even among those trying to get maximum ride comfort, there's a huge spread: some people use settings very close to full-soft; whilst others are at settings higher than half-stiff. I think I can explain that variation now, at least in part.
For one thing, my own car has now shown the variation: for best ride comfort, I set the Konis at 3/8 turn front & rear when the car had purely stock springs, but in its current Shine Front / Stock Rear configuration, the best I can do is at 1 3/8 turn front, and 3/4 turn rear. In other words, to get decent ride comfort after changing the front springs, I had to crank the front up from close to full-soft to close to full-stiff -- and even on the rear shock (where the spring has remained unchanged), I had to go up from 3/8 to 3/4(!). So what gives?
The problem is pitching. I've no time to explain the physics of it here (it'd take too long, anyway, and it's covered in any decent text (e.g., Puhn, Milliken, Bastow, etc.), so here are just the salient principles, without any explanation:
1) People do not mind vertical ride motions in the (roughly) 1 hertz to 1.5 hertz range. If a car bounces even fairly strongly, but does so straight up and down at 1 to 1.5 bounces per second, people don't really notice.
(If you don't believe this, watch a big Mercedes sedan -- a car renowned for its ride comfort on difficult roads -- on an uneven highway: the wheels might be moving like crazy, but the car as a whole will be bouncing slowly (at about 1.2 hertz) straight up and down over the wheels.)
2) People object really, really strongly to pitching motions (where the front goes up while the rear goes down, etc.). They hate it at any frequency, and if a car pitches in the 1 to 2 hertz range, they get seasick.
3) Unless the pitching motion is really severe (i.e., like a boat!), people might not notice pitching as pitching. Instead, it'll feel to them like a really annoying bounce.
4) When a pitch-prone car hits a bump, the worst of the pitch happens not on the initial impact, but on the first or second bounce after the bump has passed.
5) To minimize pitching motions, passenger cars (like a Mercedes sedan, and even our stock Golf/Jetta IV) are designed so that the rear end bounces more rapidly (about 10% more rapidly) than does the front. A car thus designed will suffer a bit of pitch on initial impact, but will ride flat (almost pure vertical bounce) on the first bounce.
6) For best ride comfort, the car described in #5 will have its dampers (shocks) set so that the second bounce is so small as to be basically unnoticeable. If the shocks are softer, the second bounce (which will have some pitching) will become noticeable; if the shocks are too stiff, there's too much of a jolt on the initial impact, and the shocks try to "jerk" the car to a halt midway through the first bounce. But get the shocks in the right sweet spot, and you get one flat bounce after a bump, and then everything stops.
7) Conversely, the worst thing you can do (pitch-wise) is to design the springs so that the front end bounces more rapidly than the rear. Doing so will create extreme pitching on the first (and second, and third) bounce.
So, here's the scoop: the stock Golf/Jetta IV is designed like every other passenger car, with a faster rear bounce to curb pitching motions. Because of that design, we can set the Konis on a stock car to be fairly soft (3/8 turn on my car): at that setting, the suspension is compliant enough to absorb all sorts of shocks, and any residual bouncing is close to pure vertical bounce in the 1.5 hertz range, which feels fairly comfortable.
With the Shine 225 front spring, the most compliant Koni setting is still surprisingly soft: at 1/2 turn, the front end soaked up bumps very well, with only about 1 residual bounce. That is, there was very little harshness from the stiff spring per se, and if I didn't have to worry about pitch, I could have used a very comfortable Koni setting.
Unfortunately, however, the 225 front spring bounces the front of the car more rapidly than does the stock rear, and on certain road surfaces, the pitching is dreadful (Peter, it might not feel like pitching to you -- it might just seem like an uncomfortable bounce -- but that's what's happening). At 3/8 turn front and rear, you can actually get seasick on certain roadways. Peter has described it as "an old Buick" in ride, which in some ways it is; there's also some much faster jiggling (one of the higher pitch modes), which is equally annoying.
The only way to get rid of this pitching (which really is awful) is to crank up the damping so much that there is no bouncing at all after a bump (i.e., get rid of the first bump entirely). And that's what both Peter and I have been forced to do: on my car, at 1 3/8 turn front and 3/4 rear, both front and rear are snubbed down hard enough that when you hit a bump, the car goes up, and then down, and then that's it. (Note: this is also the ride you get with Bilsteins -- it's very tightly controlled.) Because there's no bouncing, there's no pitching -- and thus the ride comfort at this very stiff Koni setting is far better than it is at softer settings.

Ride Problem
The problem with the above, however, is that the shocks are much stiffer than they would be on a normal passenger car suspension. It's the way competition cars are set up (track cars are in fact often even stiffer, much stiffer), and a lot of people like it that way -- but it's pretty firm; too firm for me, in fact, on broken Boston streets.
If the car didn't pitch, I could dial the shocks back down to the 1/2 turn front / 3/8 turn rear range, where the ride comfort (when the car wasn't pitching) was very good, and where the handling was just fine for me (not max-handling, but not bad at all). But because of the pitch, that's not an option.

Conjecture
So here's the question I'm asking myself: if I reduced the front spring rate a bit, and cranked up the rear spring a titch, could I eliminate enough of the pitching to permit more "normal" shock damping? And if I did that, would the ride comfort actually improve? (Peter et al report a lot of ride degradation the moment you raise the rear spring rate -- but that's always been with stiff shocks. If I raised the rear spring rate, but lowered the shock stiffness, would things get better or worse?)
And so, I'm now wondering about SofSports: they're said to be softer at the front, but stiffer at the rear, than my current setup. Will they lead to pitching? A back of the envelope calculation suggests the front & rear bounce rates on a SofSport are pretty much identical -- which means pitching, which means I'd still have to crank up the shocks, which means a stiff ride, etc. -- but who knows what the rates really are? It might work, or it might not. If it doesn't work, then Peter's Shine Front / Soft Rear might in fact be the ideal GT suspension. But if it does, then maybe the SofSport-Koni might be the way to go, for those of us with tender seats and bumpy, bumpy roads.....
That's the end of this long, long series of reports. Cheers, everyone, and please have a productive week!
- W (Ceilidh)
_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:18 AM 6-14-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:24 AM 6-14-2004_


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Hey Sam... wait for my report at the end of next week as I am changing my setup to Koni+Neuspeed Sofsport. Will tell u how turn-in changes. From what I was told, and seen, Bilstein in general has better turn-in... but will know for sure next week. 

The Bilsteins do have awesome turn in...but the Koni's might handle some of that variable spring rate issue better...that is what I'd be looking to see!
Thanks again!
Sam


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (Ceilidh)*

I'm actually curious to see what the difference between the Bilstein HD's and Koni adjustables is in regards to "ride comfort", because after my SRS kit settled in, it's pretty comfy with the HD's. It was a bit harsh the first week, but seemed to soften up a bit after. The roads around here aren't perfect, but not all that bad.....big jolts will skip the CD player though, but I can live with it for the performance gain.
Still need to get the rear bar in....haven't had time.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (alexb75)*

Damn man you kick ass ! Will there be a mention on what settings to go with with Koni and shine front AND rear springs ?


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Alex,
Also...when you say you are running coils/shocks only and no bar...do you mean you are running the stock front bar and no rear? Or did you actually remove the stock front?
May sound trivial, but I'm new to VW tuning....
Thanks again!
Sam


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (yosemitesamiam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yosemitesamiam* »_Alex,
Also...when you say you are running coils/shocks only and no bar...do you mean you are running the stock front bar and no rear? Or did you actually remove the stock front?
May sound trivial, but I'm new to VW tuning....
Thanks again!
Sam

Stock front bar and no RSB. I do NOT recommend removing the stock front bar on street driving. 
EDITED OUT


_Modified by alexb75 at 11:26 AM 6-14-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Winston, here is the spacer that goes above the spring upper plate and below the bearing:








Thanks to whoever took this picture, thanks to Captain for mailing it to me and thanks Alex for providing the part number. I checked just to make sure it is the same and it is. According to ETKA, it is a spacer for "Heavy Duty" suspension and it had been there even in 98 and 99 models, I guess just was not imported this way to North America...


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Winston, just eyeballing it with a yardstick it appears that center of wheel to fender lip measurements are just a shade over 14.5" F and R on my car with the SofSports and the removal of the spacer leaving the spacer in would have put me at 15" F and 14.5" R which seems to be about the same as a Shined vehicle.
Also, I just spent a lot of time back to back between my SVT Focus and the GTi with the Tokico's and I probably understated the firmness of the Tokico's a little bit versus the Koni Yellows (assuming damping characteristics are similar for the Koni's in my SVT and those for a MkIV). I would say that the Tokico's are more like the Koni's at 40-45% stiffness.
PMB


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (4dBunny)*

I found some Koni shock graphs for RX-7, maybe helpful... 
http://www.rx7turboturbo.com/Graphs/F-KONI.htm
http://www.rx7turboturbo.com/Graphs/R-KONI.htm


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (4dBunny)*

PMB, Alex, Peter, Captain, and others,
I just wanted to say thank you very much for all the help(!) -- I'm off to the dealership now to see if I can get hold of that spacer, as it looks like the SofSport + spacer would be a really good ride height. Thanks again, and I'll keep you all posted.
Cheers! - W


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_PMB, Alex, Peter, Captain, and others,
I just wanted to say thank you very much for all the help(!) -- I'm off to the dealership now to see if I can get hold of that spacer, as it looks like the SofSport + spacer would be a really good ride height. Thanks again, and I'll keep you all posted.
Cheers! - W

Hey while you're in there, you ought to replace the strut bearings if you haven't already done so. When mine are due for replacement, I think I'll put that spacer back in with my softsports too - depending on your results here of course


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (phatvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
Hey while you're in there, you ought to replace the strut bearings if you haven't already done so....









I'll definitely take a look at them! -- I replaced them 3500 miles ago when the Konis first went in, so they should still be ok; the weird thing is that the replacement strut mounts (the rubber donuts) were partly shot by the time I had the Shine fronts installed, which was only 2500 miles later. But the new mounts Shine's shop put on have VW part numbers on them, and they seem to be holding up much better....
Anyway, about the spacers: I took Alex's part number into the dealer and ordered a pair -- they're only $9 a piece, so if they do all the things for handling that Peter and GTItraveler say they do, this has to be one of the cheaper mods out there!


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
I'll definitely take a look at them! -- I replaced them 3500 miles ago when the Konis first went in, so they should still be ok; the weird thing is that the replacement strut mounts (the rubber donuts) were partly shot by the time I had the Shine fronts installed, which was only 2500 miles later. But the new mounts Shine's shop put on have VW part numbers on them, and they seem to be holding up much better....
Anyway, about the spacers: I took Alex's part number into the dealer and ordered a pair -- they're only $9 a piece, so if they do all the things for handling that Peter and GTItraveler say they do, this has to be one of the cheaper mods out there!

Hmm did you get the VR6 strut bearings/bushings? I seem to recall that the VR6 ones are quite a bit tougher and work well for 4-cylinder models too.
Wow $9 for essentially a relly thick metal washer! But if it does the trick, that would be awesome.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Ok, I got Sofsport + Konis instatlled today. Unfortuntely have had some problems so far.







Right front is one finger higher than left front and left rear is one finger lower than the right rear.... it's totally wiered. The shop said it should be fine and it may settle... but it looks stupid. However, no clucnks, no wiered noise, nothing!!!
First off the lot, handling was terrible....I was getting really mad... then I realized that the front shocks were set differently at the factory. One was almost softest and the other half stiff.... so I dialed them to 50% (a little less than one turn).... they dial only 1 3/4 turns. The rears are set at 1 full turn which is like 45% stiff.
I have also installed the "C" bumpstop. 
The ride in the rear is WAY TOO STIFF... it's much worse than Bilstein and have to definately take it lower. At 50/50 stiff on Sofsport... turn-in is not as good as Bilstein, ride is nicer on smaller bumps and small joints on the road but worse on big bumps. Specially rear that is way too stiff.
Hadling is a little unbalanced, I think when I dial down the rear I can get a better feel. The immediate impression is that it handles better on sharp corners and long highway ramps, but handles worse in lane change and quick reaction manouvers. 
Will report more later.... any ideas about the STUPID difference in ride height from one side to the other?!?! Could it be that the springs are F$%^ed?!??!?!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ .....Anyway, about the spacers ........... if they do all the things for handling that Peter and GTItraveler say they do, this has to be one of the cheaper mods out there!

Unfortunately you would not be able to tell, because you are switching the springs as well, while also losing slightly height. Too many variables. We have to do once a comparison with and without the spacer, with everything else being equal. According to the model we have, using this spacer (that is reported to be 10 millimeters, but I do not know) means that at those heights you are going from -0,536 to -0,489 negative camber. So, you lose some static camber, but then once you are rolling over you would be able to be closer the the best camber that the geometry can offer. I think with this spacer and SofSport you would be right where GTItraveler is with his H&R DB and that is really nice ride height. Plus with about 30-35 lb. less rate - you may really end up with the best compromise ever for a more comfortable, yet great handling "GT" setup! I am so much looking forward to hear form you on this one...... Your reports on the Shine front had been amazingly similar to the feelings I have been having for some time now, which makes me feel very, very comfortable with taking your word on future evaluations.


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Winston, check with asw88 (user id) on ebay for some Sofsports. Mine cost me about $150 shipped. The low price was one of the reasons that I figured I would try them before going with a full shine if they weren't what I expected. Also, I should also mention that I have not re-aligned my car since the install.
Alexb, who did your install? This may be a little thing, but I helped with the install on mine and getting the springs to seat properly before bolting everything together was a little bit of a challenge. Your springs might need a little time to seat properly. Just a thought. 
PMB


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_Alexb, who did your install? This may be a little thing, but I helped with the install on mine and getting the springs to seat properly before bolting everything together was a little bit of a challenge. Your springs might need a little time to seat properly. Just a thought. 
PMB

It was the local Neuspeed dealer that I have done my last suspension there too. The guy who installed it this time was a newer guy, so he might have screwed up, but they said since the struts have a ridge for springs to seat on properly if it wasn't installed properly it should have made some clunk or something.






















Not sure what's gone wrong, or I should just wait. The other thing is that on the SAME side that the front is higher, the rear is LOWER?!?!?!?!??!?!?!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Hi Alex,
I'm sorry to hear things have been disappointing so far....

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Ok, I got Sofsport + Konis instatlled today. Unfortuntely have had some problems so far.







Right front is one finger higher than left front and left rear is one finger lower than the right rear.... it's totally wiered. The shop said it should be fine and it may settle... but it looks stupid. However, no clucnks, no wiered noise, nothing!!!


That's an impressive amount of corner weighting, to get the car to sit so unevenly. Is this a shop you've had good experience with before? It sounds like something's mis-seated, or perhaps a spring has been rotated so that the endcoils are in the wrong orientation....

_Quote »_
First off the lot, handling was terrible....I was getting really mad... then I realized that the front shocks were set differently at the factory. One was almost softest and the other half stiff.... so I dialed them to 50% (a little less than one turn).... they dial only 1 3/4 turns. The rears are set at 1 full turn which is like 45% stiff.


At full-soft (front) my Shine-Front car was awful too, so having one shock near full-soft must have felt pretty strange....My front Konis also only dial up 1 3/4 turns, so we're consistent there.....For what it's worth, my rear Konis (on stock springs, which are probably 120-130lb/in) are at 3/4 turn, which is about as stiff as I can stand at the rear.


_Quote »_
The ride in the rear is WAY TOO STIFF... it's much worse than Bilstein and have to definately take it lower. At 50/50 stiff on Sofsport... turn-in is not as good as Bilstein, ride is nicer on smaller bumps and small joints on the road but worse on big bumps. Specially rear that is way too stiff.


On turn-in: have you tried going stiffer on the front settings? If so, does it get much better? I wonder if some of the turn-in has to do with your losing static negative camber in bringing the ride height back up towards stock; the turn-in on my own car became a little less incisive when I brought the front up 3/4" (though of course I also had a big spring rate change, which you don't).
Also, would your toe-in have changed with the change in ride height? I haven't been paying attention to how much lowering/ raising can take place before the alignment changes much, but if your toe-in has altered, that can have an effect on turn-in as well.
Your "small bump ok / big bump bad" experience is a little surprising, as that's something that usually means underdamping -- are the big bumps still bad if you crank up the front Konis up another 1/8 to 1/4 turn? It sounds a little like the pitch problems I had (and maybe Peter had) when the front & rear shocks were mismatched. Could you please try dialing the fronts up first, before you try softening the rear?
In any event, please do tell us if softening the rear helps a lot (if it does, then that suggests the SofSports are not prone to pitching problems the way the Shine Front / Stock Rear setup is) -- thanks!

_Quote »_
Hadling is a little unbalanced, I think when I dial down the rear I can get a better feel. The immediate impression is that it handles better on sharp corners and long highway ramps, but handles worse in lane change and quick reaction manouvers. 


If your car is an corner weighted as you described, it should feel a little unbalanced in general! But otherwise, one possibility is that your fronts are underdamped a bit, compared with what you're used to with the Bilsteins; the other possibility is that you used to be riding on the bumpstops, and now you're not.... In the sharp corners, the stiff rear damping is probably helping bring the rear around (I had the same thing on stock springs, when I cranked the rear Konis up a bit), and in long ramps your suspension is probably more supple & is soaking up the bumps better than before. But as for the lane change and "quick reaction maneuvers": that might be the front shocks being too soft....but it also might just be a reflection of your no longer riding on the bump stops.

_Quote »_
Will report more later.... any ideas about the STUPID difference in ride height from one side to the other?!?! Could it be that the springs are F$%^ed?!??!?!









Peter, PMB, PhatVW, and Ian, any thoughts? To me it sounds like an installation problem, but you all have more experience with spring swaps....
Good luck Alex; I'm really sorry to hear about the initial disappointment, and I hope it gets better soon. Please keep us posted -- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

Thanks Winston... I am very tired today (got only 3 hours of sleep) and waited for SUCH A LONG TIME at the shop in the heat to get these installed and had to rush to a meeting after, etc, etc, etc. so not in a generally good mood.
The only thing I have done so far, was to go from the shop to my school (20 mins highway)... then come back home (45 mins highway). After getting to school, I fixed the fronts to be the same stiffness which helped quite a bit. So, my experience has been VERY LIMITED with only 2 settings (one was a screwup)... 
On the ride thing on smaller, bigger... it seems like Konis' are not AS sensetive as Bilstein to very small joints on the street and are forgiving but when I hit a real bump, or go over a speed bump the impact is greater than Bilstein... specially in the rear as explained. It MUST be lower stiffness in the rear FOR SURE. I will probably go 1/2 or 3/4 turn... I am more towards 1/2 since this one turn is a way too stiff. I cannot even imagine how people can do 100% stiff in the rear... 50% stiff is way stiffer than Bilstein... maybe 25% is ok...
I only tested the handling when I changed lanes or took highway exits. My lane change was not as good as before... highway exit was probably better but need to do a few more to make sure. 
will report more when I get more experience with this setup.



_Modified by alexb75 at 8:28 PM 6-16-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
If your car is an corner weighted as you described, it should feel a little unbalanced in general! But otherwise, one possibility is that your fronts are underdamped a bit, compared with what you're used to with the Bilsteins; the other possibility is that you used to be riding on the bumpstops, and now you're not.... In the sharp corners, the stiff rear damping is probably helping bring the rear around (I had the same thing on stock springs, when I cranked the rear Konis up a bit), and in long ramps your suspension is probably more supple & is soaking up the bumps better than before. But as for the lane change and "quick reaction maneuvers": that might be the front shocks being too soft....but it also might just be a reflection of your no longer riding on the bump stops.
Peter, PMB, PhatVW, and Ian, any thoughts? To me it sounds like an installation problem, but you all have more experience with spring swaps....


I would definitely give it a couple days of driving. The springs and/or shocks definitely do settle no matter what anybody has to say about the physical imposibility of springs settling/sagging over time. I have the pictures to prove it in my signature!
If the ride heights don't even out within a week, then take if back to the shop and have them swap the springs left-to-right. That will tell you if one of the springs is out of spec. Also have them check out the bushings/bearings to make sure one isn't worn more than the other or soemthing stupid like that.
Alex, next time I drive up to Vancouver we definitely have to hookup and compare rides - Or you should just come down to Seattle for the Waterwagens event on August 1st - I think its on the Civic holiday long weekend...


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Sounds like no fun so far! Isn't experimentation great?
Hey...I'll make the offer right now...if you find out those Koni's are for you...and you find a setting on them you like, I'll buy the Bilstein Sports.
Thanks
Sam


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (yosemitesamiam)*

Alex..... Please, do not desperate! Good things do not happen fast and easy. It took us how many pages to find out some combinations with the rebound settings that work better than others. It is not something that will happen right away. Before you go to lower rear setting, please try to test almost all the possible front settings. This way you will start accumulating some data about what gives what, etc..... First thing to do tomorrow morning, put the Front Rebound to 75% to 80% or about there and you will see a very noticeable difference. A LOT will change and you will gain faith in your new system as it responds very well in tweaking...... Now that you say the 50% rear is alot for you, means to me you ar eon the sensitive side, like some of us here. It is very important, so now you know that you have to go lower and you have no business above 50%. Yes, there are people who drive with full stiff rear and I am with you in not understanding how they can do so. If roads are glass smooth, maybe yeah, but not mine here..... guess not your either...... But before you go to 25% rear, PLEASE do try as much as possible front settings! And try them for several miles, possibly on the same roads, bad roads, curves, etc. Going stiffer in the front can give you (some time) so much that you may even change your mind and keep the rear at 50%!!! It happen to me in the past and I remember (even if my springs are different) that when I had the rear at 50%, I could absolutely NOT drive the front at 50%...it had to be either around 25% or at 75% and above! Try all the fronts first and please tel us what you find. Yes,it is hard and disappointing, specially when you do not get it right immediately, but it will pay you back later. You will see in few days you will have a great car.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

sure Peter, will do. but I dont understand how a stiffer or softer front can cure the rear stiffneess? When I hit a bump in the rear there's just not enough suspension travel. its just as stiff as u can imagine... maybe I have it dialed higher than 50% then?!


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_sure Peter, will do. but I dont understand how a stiffer or softer front can cure the rear stiffneess? When I hit a bump in the rear there's just not enough suspension travel. its just as stiff as u can imagine... maybe I have it dialed higher than 50% then?! 

And to add yet another variable to the equation... don't forget to play with the tire pressures. 2 or 3 psi in the rear can make all the difference in the world for comfort. And softer is not always more comfortable!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ ..... but I dont understand how a stiffer or softer front can cure the rear stiffneess? When I hit a bump in the rear there's just not enough suspension travel. its just as stiff as u can imagine... maybe I have it dialed higher than 50% then?! 

Alex, the stiffer front is not going to make your rear softer, but it will change the frequency of the front, which together with the frequency on the rear will change dramatically the behavior of the car over bumps...... You may not like it, but have to try it, so you feel for yourself what we have been talking about through all these pages. Then you go and put the rear on 25% or even 20% and that most probably will do it for you. Then when you go on the track, crank just the front as much as you want (if surface is really smooth). With this new setup you may be little disappointed in city driving (read: low speed 90 degree turns) as it may give you slightly "softer" feeling, but the trade-off is the very high speed corners (like on the track) you will have great improvement. Basically, the higher the speed, the more the improvement....... What is your tire pressure? And you are on 225-17 IIRC? That is a stiff side wall.....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (pyce)*

Ok guys, here are some pics. I don't wanna clutter this place so just point u to a webpage. 
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...1.htm
Please let me know what could be wrong. I took some measurements too form the middle of the wheel to fender:
Right Front 14 5/8 or 14 1/2
Left Front 15 1/8 or 15"
Right Rear 14 3/8
Left Rear 14 1/4
So, right is about 3/8 or 1/2 higher. it's a little more than half a finger difference. It's hard to see in the pics but it's totally obvious in person. The 1/8 difference in the back is not a biggie and probably will be fixed when it settles. 
My suspect is the picture left strut3 which shows the bottom of the spring sitting a little high on the strut... but it could be just the angle... not sure








Any help is appreciated. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_My suspect is the picture left strut3 which shows the bottom of the spring sitting a little high on the strut... but it could be just the angle... not sure









Alex - have you tried jacking up the left front, and spinning the spring a bit? On Bilsteins, there is a very specific orientation of the lower spring to the spring seat ... spin the spring a bit when it is barely touching the spring seat, and you'll see what I mean.
I've gotten quite good at finding this spot on my own ... it seams whenever my car is on a lift, or jacked up for service, the tech doesn't pay close enough attention when lowering my car ... the shorter SRS front springs are NEVER properly seated in the seats when I get my car back.








edit: I know you are using Koni's now, but the spring seat looks identical to the Bilstein seat.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 5:00 PM 6-17-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*

Thanks Chris... will check that.
Also, check this out
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...3.htm
The struts are pointing the opposite way on the car!??!?!








Should it be like that? Is this wrong? I am freaking out here... I don't remember the Bilstein's to be like this.


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_...
Please let me know what could be wrong. I took some measurements too form the middle of the wheel to fender:
Right Front 14 5/8 or 14 1/2
Left Front 15 1/8 or 15"
Right Rear 14 3/8
Left Rear 14 1/4
... 

Interesting. Mine is the opposite. (Bilistien with shine 220/200)
Right Front - 15 (I think, pen ran out of ink)
Left Front - 15 (I think, pen ran out of ink)
Right Rear - 14"
Left Rear - 14.25"


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Thanks Chris... will check that.
Also, check this out
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...3.htm
The struts are pointing the opposite way on the car!??!?!








Should it be like that? Is this wrong? I am freaking out here... I don't remember the Bilstein's to be like this.


Interesting ... I'll take a peak tonight and get back to you .....
edit: Thinking about it, it probably shouldn't matter ... the springs will just be rotated 180 degrees relative to eachother to fit the seat ... I will check though.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 5:27 PM 6-17-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

Alex…..
Last night:

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ ......Right front is one finger higher than left front and left rear is one finger lower than the right rear..... 

Today:

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ ...... it's a little more than half a finger difference......

So, it is improving already, no?


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Thanks Chris... will check that.
Also, check this out
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...3.htm
The struts are pointing the opposite way on the car!??!?!








Should it be like that? Is this wrong? I am freaking out here... I don't remember the Bilstein's to be like this.


It suppose to be like that. POSITIVE caster.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_The struts are pointing the opposite way on the car!??!?!








Should it be like that? Is this wrong? I am freaking out here... I don't remember the Bilstein's to be like this.


Hi Alex,
I just went and took a look at my car -- it's the same as yours; the tang points rearwards on the left strut, and towards the front on the right strut. So you're all set on that one!
- W


_Modified by Ceilidh at 5:46 PM 6-17-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_
It suppose to be like that. POSITIVE caster. 

No I think he is referring to the fact that the little tabs and indentations on the strut body are oriented the same way in the pictures on the left and right struts. Intuitively I would think they would be mirror images of each other.
I'm pretty sure my Bilsteins are mirror images... In fact, some of the tabs look like they can be used to fasten flexible brake lines and it doesn't make sense to attach a brake line in front of the strut on one side and behind the strut on the other side. So I wonder why Koni did it that way?



_Modified by phatvw at 2:56 PM 6-17-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hi Alex,
I just went and took a look at my car -- it's the same as yours; the tang points rearwards on the left strut, and towards the front on the right strut. So you're all set on that one!
- W


That is TOTALLY wiered!!! I am 100% sure Bilstein's were not like that, it could be a cost saving measure by Koni!!! Doesn't make sense though.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
.....Thinking about it, it probably shouldn't matter ... the springs will just be rotated 180 degrees relative to eachother to fit the seat ... I will check though.


Hi Chris,
Obscure production car note (I figured you're probably the only other person on the forum who cares about these things!): on both the OEM spring and the Shine (don't know about the SofSport, but it's probably the case there, too), the "pigtail" part of the spring is offset from the main spring-axis.
The offset is there to reduce the off-axis load on the strut (caused by the tire-contact-patch not being in line with the strut); without it, you get off-axis loads, and therefore binding. Hence having the spring rotated 180 degrees would be a detrimental thing (you'd might also get clearance problems, as the top of the spring would be offset in the wrong direction).
(For a really obscure point: on the OEM spring, not only is the pigtail offset -- the whole spring is slightly "bent" like a cucumber, which further reduces the off-axis loading at all wheel travels.....just one of the several reasons why it's tough getting stock levels of ride comfort with aftermarket springs.)
Anyway, obscure production-car details, for maximizing ride comfort; irrelevant for most people, but thought you might get a kick out of it.







Cheers!
- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Alex's SofSports*

Hi Alex,
Just out of curiosity, does Neuspeed have any recommendations as to where to set Konis with their SofSports?
I'm still surprised your rear shocks feel so stiff; when you reduce the stiffness, you might want to try something around 5/8 stiffness.
(Reasoning): For my car (on stock rear springs):
3/8 to 1/2 turn = maximum ride comfort (no jolting)
~3/4 turn = lowest setting that essentially eliminates bouncing (but allows some jolting)
With stock springs front & rear, I was happy at 3/8-1/2 turn; with stiffer front springs, I had to go to 3/4 to stop the pitching and get things synced up with the fronts. Since your rear springs are stiffer than my stockers, 5/8 is (to make a more or less random guess) a possible place for no-jolting....
As for your fronts: I'm up at 1 3/8 turns now (on 257 lb/in Shines), and you're below 1 turn. Could you dial yours up to 1 1/4 before you do anything to the rears, and let us know if it feels any better? Thanks, and good luck!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Alex's SofSports (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hi Alex,
Just out of curiosity, does Neuspeed have any recommendations as to where to set Konis with their SofSports?
I'm still surprised your rear shocks feel so stiff; when you reduce the stiffness, you might want to try something around 5/8 stiffness.
(Reasoning): For my car (on stock rear springs):
3/8 to 1/2 turn = maximum ride comfort (no jolting)
~3/4 turn = lowest setting that essentially eliminates bouncing (but allows some jolting)
With stock springs front & rear, I was happy at 3/8-1/2 turn; with stiffer front springs, I had to go to 3/4 to stop the pitching and get things synced up with the fronts. Since your rear springs are stiffer than my stockers, 5/8 is (to make a more or less random guess) a possible place for no-jolting....
As for your fronts: I'm up at 1 3/8 turns now (on 257 lb/in Shines), and you're below 1 turn. Could you dial yours up to 1 1/4 before you do anything to the rears, and let us know if it feels any better? Thanks, and good luck!
- W

Neuspeed told me to set it at a track with a setting the yields the fastest time and then dial it down by 50% from that position (with same proportion) for the street. Now, I won't go to a track soon, so cannot do that. Another one also suggested softest and then trying to bump it up from there if I could.
Now, the only thing is that I could be at a stiffer setting in the rear or that the installer might have screwed up the adjustment, not quite sure?!?! I have one full turn in the rear, and a little less than one turn up front. Will try something different a little later on.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
That is TOTALLY wiered!!! I am 100% sure Bilstein's were not like that, it could be a cost saving measure by Koni!!! Doesn't make sense though.

Well ..... my Bilstein's look just like your Koni's. I'd say you've got the right parts.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (Ceilidh)*

I'll have to get my car off the ground and see exactly how the springs line up with each other ... I never really thought about the direction they were facing, only that they were completely seated. The end of the spring that fits into the detent of the seat will be on the outside of the car on both sides ... though on one side, the end of the spring will face the front of the car, and on the other side, the end of the spring will face the rear of the car.
Keep those obscure design details coming ... it may be strange, but I enjoy learning _anything_ new


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (f1forkvr6)*

Ok, took it to another shop close by...they also confirmed that one side's higher but said that it will probably settle to something closer. They didn't put it up on the lift since they were working on a rally car but said to come back Monday when the car has settled a little bit more. 
I also drove some more and at different settings. I have 15 steps on the Koni dial (it has 8 edges)... so just a little under 2 turns.
I had it at 7 turns (almost 50%) before, today I first put it at 9 turns and then at 11 turns. Best handling was at 11 turns (almost 3/4 sitffness) and by going up in the front rebound the overall ride imroved a little since it evened out the rear and front. The front still rides ok at 3/4... basically you can go as stiff as you can up front and it can take it nicely. However, STILL the rear is MUCH stiffer than the front at 3/4 stiff?!?!








How's your setting guys? If I hit the same bump with front and rear, the bang in the rear (with 44% stiffness) is MUCH MORE than the front at 3/4 stiffness!!! Not sure what's happening, either the adjustment have been screwed up, or the new shorter stiffer bumpstop is doing something?! OR, you guys with softer rears have more give with the shocks and can bump it up higher, OR, it's Jetta heavier rear?!? I don't know








Also, it now handles better than Bilstein








At 3/4 stiff front and 1/2 rear the car handles better and the thing that impressed me the most and was the biggest difference was that before when I used to take a bumpy corner hard, I used to ALWAYS bounced around in the back... but now it's more planted on the road eventhough it's way stiffer than before for some reason. 
One other thing I realized was the the steering wheel is heavier and I have to make more effort with the steering wheel, like it wants to get out of my hands. Also, I get steering wheel shake when I brake from high speeds?! Not sure why that's happening, it could be alignment since it's definately off now!
Will keep u all posted, please advise about how stiff ur rear feels and why the steering is heavier now?! 
Thnx http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ Also, it now handles better than Bilstein









Now we are talking!







.... But on the track it will fade some with few laps. Mine fades some even in the mountains, which is not any near track use. But you can always crank it more to compensate...... A Koni Yellow (the one you have) can always be made to act stiffer than the Bilstein sport you had. And on top of that, if you dial them to give you the same results for turn-in, etc the Koni will result in more comfortable ride.... but you are finding these things now by yourself....

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_ ....At 3/4 stiff front and 1/2 rear the car handles better and the thing that impressed me the most and was the biggest difference was that before when I used to take a bumpy corner hard, I used to ALWAYS bounced around in the back... but now it's more planted on the road even though it's way stiffer than before for some reason..... 

You are not on the Buffers anymore! you have some suspension travel now. The only thing to do next would be do first check whether the rear dampers are really set to 50%, because per mistake they could be much higher than that. I once had the Shine 150 (170 lb spring, so it is almost like yours) in the rear with 50% rebound and it was not so great for my long commutes, but was not really as bad as you seem to have it now, therefore I suspect your rears may be more than 50%..... 
If you find out they are at 50% now, then go down to 3/8 to 5/8 turn, maybe 3/8 better as you are on stiff tires. This will put you back to about 20% stiff and I am ready to bet you will like it there. You will lose some of the great turn -in feel you have now, but you will get used to it. It will be one comfy ride and you will be even faster on bumpy curves!

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_.....One other thing I realized was the steering wheel is heavier and I have to make more effort with the steering wheel, like it wants to get out of my hands..... 

This was something I noticed when installing Shine front spring. I guess now you are having better geometry, therefore more tire contact with the road, so more effort to turn the wheel. It is similar feel when switch from 195 tires to 225 tires, therefore my guess on contact patch improvement..... But could be also that you now have somehow less Caster (because you are taller) and therefore you gain less negative camber with steering, so again more tire on the road..... Ok, is that feeling when you go slow, like browsing the parking lot, or is it also when you go on fast curves?

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Also, I get steering wheel shake when I brake from high speeds?! Not sure why that's happening, it could be alignment since it's definitely off now! 

Really no idea why .... your rotors can not be bent from suspension swap. Wait till you get alignment... and keep us posted! Good luck!


----------



## Maverick99 (Mar 23, 2002)

Alex,
Just getting caught up. Does the ride feel stiffer than when you were in my car? Because my rears are set at 5/8 and I have a sway and 18's. At first I thought it was rough but after a couple of weeks it settles down. Remember you just installed them yesterday. Wait a few days for the shocks to work in a little. I found mine to soften up slightly on hard impacts after a week or so. I wonder if yours are truly set at 50%. Did you set them yourself or did you have the mechanic set it for you. The rears can be a little tricky and you have to make sure that it catches properly when you are adjusting them. Sounds like they are more like 3/4 stiff than 1/2 stiff. Only one way to find out!
We should get out for some tests back to back up towards Whistler to see how each car handles.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (Maverick99)*

Thanks guys. 
Geff: My rear seems stiffer than yours... so not sure why, but remember that I am on 160 rear sofsport which is different than your Eibachs. I will be going to Europe next week, maybe we can do somethign this weekend, but only if I have done my stuff, will call u.
Peter: Turn-in is still not as good as Bilstein! At least by my tests so far. The handling seems to be better, but it's different, the car seems a little harder to cotnrol, could be that more tire on the ground... not sure. Need to do more tests and drive and also for it to settle more. 
Basically, the first thing is to fix the rears...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, before you had 220 lb spring plus stiff Bilstein buffer, so I am so ready to believe you about better turn-in. Now you have just a 220 lb spring and the buffers comes later in the curve, and it is softer one too.... Also, you get a lot of different turn-in scenarios with just playing with rear rebound...... take it easy, one at a time and be positive. Things can (and will) only go better from now


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*

Hi Alex,
Glad things are working a bit better!

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_....I have 15 steps on the Koni dial (it has 8 edges)...I had it at 7 turns (almost 50%) before, today I first put it at 9 turns and then at 11 turns. Best handling was at 11 turns (almost 3/4 sitffness) and by going up in the front rebound the overall ride imroved a little since it evened out the rear and front....


Alex, at 11 "turns" (i.e., "steps") you are at exactly the same front setting as I am with my front Shines: 1 3/8 rotations of the adjuster. The fact that we wound up at pretty much the same place is encouraging(!).

_Quote »_ However, STILL the rear is MUCH stiffer than the front at 3/4 stiff?!?!








How's your setting guys? If I hit the same bump with front and rear, the bang in the rear (with 44% stiffness) is MUCH MORE than the front at 3/4 stiffness!!! Not sure what's happening, either the adjustment have been screwed up, or the new shorter stiffer bumpstop is doing something?! OR, you guys with softer rears have more give with the shocks and can bump it up higher, OR, it's Jetta heavier rear?!? I don't know










I'd add my voice to the chorus of those suggesting your rears might be set much firmer than intended. If they're not, then come down from 1 turn (where you currently are) and perhaps try setting them at 3/4 turn (35%)....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*A plea for consistent nomenclature*

Hi Everyone,
You can ignore this if you like







, but I was wondering if we could agree on a consistent way of referring to shock settings?
It's not always clear on first reading what setting people are referring to (does "3/4 stiff" mean 3/4 of a turn towards stiff, or 3/4 of two revolutions, or 3/4 of 1 3/4 revolutions, or 3/4 of 2 1/4 revolutions, etc.???). Plus we've a problem in that everyone seems to have slightly different adjustment ranges on their front Konis: some of us have less than 1 3/4 full turns, whilst others have more than 2. It's not a huge deal, but perhaps we might use the following convention?: (I'll put the crux of the convention in quotation boxes...)
1) We try to stop saying things like 1/2 stiff, 3/8 firm, etc. (It's usually clear enough, but sometimes it's not...) Instead, we either specify a number of "turns" (e.g., 3/4 turn, or 5/8 turn, etc.), or we give a % (e.g., 25%, 37.5%, etc.).

_Quote »_
2) "Turns" = number of revolutions (of the front adjuster or rear shaft) away from full-soft. Hence a 90 degree rotation is 1/4 turn; 360 degrees is 1 turn, etc.


3) For the %, we have the problem of different sized adjustment ranges on different people's shocks (i.e., Peter's 50% front might be different from my 50%). Plus at the rears, some people seem to be assuming there are 2 full rotations possible, whilst others are dividing by 2 1/8. Now, this is going to sound a little weird, but let's try this:

_Quote »_
a) Let's just assume that there are exactly 2 full rotations available both front and rear. Thus 1 turn = 50%; 1/2 turn = 25 %; 1 1/4 turn = 62.5%, etc.


b) The screwy thing about the above convention is that for many of us, "full-stiff" is not going be 100%: because my front Konis only go up to 1 3/4 turn, the highest I can go is 87.5%; in contrast, Peter (who has more than 2 turns of adjustment range) can actually exceed 100%.
c) Why adopt the above convention? Well, it seems a reasonable way to go, based on manufacturing tolerances and general shock design: until someone actually tests some shocks and tells us otherwise, it'd be most reasonable to assume "full-soft" is the same on all of our Konis, but "full-stiff" will vary (i.e., most likely, Peter's "full stiff" fronts are in fact stiffer than my "full stiff" fronts).
Feel free to stop reading here!







But if you're interested in the reasoning, you can keep reading below....
To explain: When we adjust the Konis, we're basically screwing in a shaft that tightens the preload on a stack of internal valves/springs/washers. The change in preload with a given shaft rotation will be determined by the thread pitch on the shaft, and that's a fairly precisely-controlled design feature (meaning, 360 degrees of shaft rotation will probably cause a uniform amount of stiffening, regardless of whose shocks we're talking about).
What is harder to control during manufacturing is the overall stiffness of a particular shaft orientation -- if I set the shaft at 90 degrees on a bunch of shocks, some of them will be stiff (because the valve stack is thick, and hence there's more preload, etc.), whereas some of them will be soft.
Given the almost inevitable production variation in shock stiffness, I (as the manufacturer) have two choices: if I'm shoddy and lazy, I just give each shock the same range of adjustment (e.g., two full shaft rotations), and I send them out the door. Some will be stiff, and some will be soft, and I really don't care....
The other alternative, if I'm a high-quality shock manufacturer and I really care about quality and my brand reputation, is that I give each shock the same initial range of adjustment (e.g., perhaps 2 1/4 shaft rotations), and then I put an additional limit on one end of the adjustment. In particular, if I advise consumers to install the shocks in full-soft position on their stock suspensions, I will want to make sure that "full soft" means the same thing on every shock.
To do this, I'll initially build every shock to be a little soft, and then put a limit/stop on each adjuster so that every shock can only be softened to the desired "full soft" position. If a shock starts out close to spec, it will thus have close to the full range of adjustment still available to it. But if the shock starts out on the soft side, I'll block out a large part of the "soft" adjustment, and I won't be able to make it really stiff. (And if I'm really concerned about quality, I'll pick and choose among shocks to make sure that each pair in a set winds up with about the same adjustment range.)
Anyway, I've never talked with a shock engineer, and I don't know if the above is what Koni is doing. But it's what we would do with other engineering products, and it would explain why we seem to have different adjustment ranges between us.
Bottom line, until we learn otherwise, it's probably safest to assume that "full-stiff" means different things on different individual Konis, whereas "full-soft" is probably pretty consistent. Hence in discussing damper settings, we're best off referring either to # turns from full soft, or else to a % figure based on a commonly-accepted nominal adjustment range. Since Koni claims 2 turns adjustment, that's probably nominal, and "100%" = 2 turns.
Anyway, if people forget, that's fine!







But it'd be nice if we could be consistent.


_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:36 AM 6-18-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (Ceilidh)*

Thanks Winston... I actually wanna propose something different. I believe if we take the range softest - stiffest as constant.... then we should NOT care about how many turns and can just state it relative to our OWN range. I actually believe you (and me) also have 100% stiffness as Peter... but our knob turns faster, so getting there sooner. So, one turn for you makes it stiffer than Peter's, doesn’t it?! 
So, wouldn't it be easiest to state the number of "steps or turns" from softest, out of possible "steps or turns"? 
Something like 11/15, or 9/16... where the first number is the current steps from softest, and the second one is the available steps from softest on the current Koni shock. For instance I have 15 steps on mine from softest to stiffest, and I am currently at step 11... which would be 11/15=73% stiff...
What do u think?

_Modified by alexb75 at 10:02 PM 6-17-2004_


_Modified by alexb75 at 10:03 PM 6-17-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (alexb75)*

The thing is, you two have 1 3/4 turn and I have full 2 turns, but it is absolutely possible that all of us actually MAX at 1 and 3/4 and my extra 1/4 is nothing more than 100% ...... Reason is, I can't feel the difference between 1 3/4 and 2 on mine. But below 1 3/4 I feel every 1/4 turn give difference....... 
Alex, your idea is great, but I see difficulty for people to apply it for the rears, where there is no knob...... Do not take it personally, but I am with Winston here, we should all go with assuming the 2 full turns are 100% regardless whether we can get there or not. Anyway, none of us would really spend much time at around 90 to 100% on daily driving. It is really easier for all the people to come to communicate in:
0 turn - 0% stiff
1/2 turn - 25%
1 turn - 50%
1 1/2 turn - 75%
and that is it, because really, you will not sped much time above this in daily use...... when you go to the track, then I guess you will turn the fronts at full stiff, whatever turns that is


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (pyce)*

but we may be in the middle of thos... then how can I say 11/15 stiffness? I have to convert it to 2 turns and then recalculate the stiffness... so instead of 73% it would be 68%... which I totally beleive is WRONG. My stiffest is at 15 steps... so 11 steps is 73% and NOT 68% on this Koni... right?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Also, I get steering wheel shake when I brake from high speeds?! Not sure why that's happening, it could be alignment since it's definately off now!

Two things. First, if your brakes are not to blame for the vibration, check inner and outer tierod ends. When my inner tie-rod ends were worn, I had the same symptom you describe. Second, were you able to confirm that the left front spring is actually siting where it should in the spring seat?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_... then how can I say 11/15 stiffness? I have to convert it to 2 turns and then recalculate the stiffness... so instead of 73% it would be 68%... which I totally beleive is WRONG. ....


Hello Alex!
This isn't a hugely critical issue (the numbers only differ by a few percentage points), so there's no need for anyone to use a convention that feels wrong.








My main concern is that people sometimes say things like "I have my Konis set at 3/4", and there's no way to tell whether they mean 3/4 turns (270 degrees), or 3/4 stiffness (75%). Hence the suggestion that we reserve the fractions for "turns" (as in "1/2 turn", and use percentages for the % stiffness (as in "37.5%", or "37.5% stiff"). That way there's no gross ambiguity (e.g., 3/4 turns is a LOT softer than 75%!).
As for the number of turns issue: none of us really knows exactly how the Konis measure out -- so please do whatever feels best! But for what it's worth, I do think the "100% = 2 turns" convention is better for communications between all of us, for a variety of technical reasons....The way the adjuster works (by altering the preload on a valve stack), a 1/2 turn-from-full-soft adjustment on my Koni probably gives a very similar effect to a 1/2 turn-from-full-soft adjustment on Peter's Koni, and the main difference between Peter's and mine is that he has an additional 1/4 turn he can go on the high end. At that high end, however (as Peter points out), there's probably not that much difference in stiffness between 1 3/4 turn vs. 2 turns -- that is, Peter gets more "turns", but he doesn't really get much additional stiffness out of it. Hence what's consistent between our two shocks is how many turns we go from full-soft, not the % we are from our respective maxima. And so, if we want to compare our shocks, we're best off either discussing the # of turns, or else using a % from some uniform standard (in this case, 2 turns).
But again, this is not a critical issue!







The more important thing is that we keep clear whether we're talking about "turns" vs. "%".
As for referring to the number of "steps" or "turns" on the adjustment knob, with 8 steps/turns = 360 degrees -- enough of us already mean "1 turn" as 360 degrees, that we should stay with that definition for "turns". But "steps" is pretty clear!
In any case, good luck with those rear shocks, and let us know if they were really set at 1 turn (a.k.a. 360 degrees, 50%, or 8 steps







). Cheers! - W

_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:01 AM 6-18-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:05 AM 6-18-2004_


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

Been following this for quite some time. Great info ! I have a set of Shines on the way and am looking into the GB for Koni's elsewhere on Vortex.
I don't want to skew this thread, but one thing that has bothered me all along is the adjustment of the rears on the Jetta. Not having installed Koni's yet, am I to understand that the rears must be removed to adjust ? Has anyone devised away to adjust the rears without continually removing them ? Possibly a rear "shock tower" mod whereby the shocks can be adjusted from above, thru the trunk ?
Keep up the great info flow !!
Dean


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: (WI-TDI-Fan)*

Hi Dean,
I'm afraid you'll have to remove the rear Koni in order to adjust it. Cutting an access port won't work, as you have to remove the rear bumpstop and physically push the shock to full-compression for the adjustment. Peter has a separate thread someplace to explain how it's done -- perhaps he can point you to it.
Congrats on the Shine & Koni setup -- let us know how it works out!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (Ceilidh)*

Dean and Alex .... 
Here is the link for the topic where we tried to describe visually how to adjust the rear Koni Yellow. Alex, I know you know how to do it, but double check never hurts...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1124754
Dean, I contacted few companies here in regards to convert the rear Konis in a way that I can adjust them externally. They can actually even make them in a way that even compression can be adjusted separately! The only issue is that they ask for 390$ per corner







........


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Hello Alex!
This isn't a hugely critical issue (the numbers only differ by a few percentage points), so there's no need for anyone to use a convention that feels wrong.








My main concern is that people sometimes say things like "I have my Konis set at 3/4", and there's no way to tell whether they mean 3/4 turns (270 degrees), or 3/4 stiffness (75%). Hence the suggestion that we reserve the fractions for "turns" (as in "1/2 turn", and use percentages for the % stiffness (as in "37.5%", or "37.5% stiff"). That way there's no gross ambiguity (e.g., 3/4 turns is a LOT softer than 75%!).
In any case, good luck with those rear shocks, and let us know if they were really set at 1 turn (a.k.a. 360 degrees, 50%, or 8 steps







). Cheers! - W


Ok, that sounds cool. So, I will use % for stiffness and number of turns of number of steps (different from each other) to report my settings. I personally like to just say I am at 11 steps... 
I am really getting concerned about the rears.... I have my fronts at 75% and they are NOT nearly as stiff as rear?!! The rear's fairly stiff and I won't have time to re-adjust them until Monday.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: A plea for consistent nomenclature (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_....I am really getting concerned about the rears.... I have my fronts at 75% and they are NOT nearly as stiff as rear?!! The rear's fairly stiff and I won't have time to re-adjust them until Monday.

The fronts, even at 100% stiff would never affect comfort as much as the rears. There is nothing to be concern about, it was just a wrong setting for your case, but no one could know whether will be too much or too little for you. I understand everybody wants to get it right the first time, but it is not always possible. You are still very lucky as you will get it right the second time and most probably you would never touch the rears again. Wait till Monday and very carefully adjust them at about 3/8 of a turn from full soft, whatever the percentage is and that will be it. The only concern you should have is to make sure you put them at the desired 3/8 turn and that they "stay there" during installation. The rest is biography....


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*

Found the post on adjusting the Koni's - thanks.
As for the $390 and change per corner for 'adjust w/o removing' rears . . . Well let's just say I'll pass. With an aboveground floor hoist in my shop and air tools out the wazoo, I guess I can make the adjustments the 'old fashioned' way. Just seems to me that being able to adjust from above would give much quicker and more accurate results, especially during comparison testing.
Thanks again for the great info !
Dean


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Dean, I contacted few companies here in regards to convert the rear Konis in a way that I can adjust them externally. They can actually even make them in a way that even compression can be adjusted separately! The only issue is that they ask for 390$ per corner







........ 

OK, so $290 a corner for "converted adjustable" rear Koni's is, well, a little steep. But I gotta ask, " Who's suggestting or advertising this can be done?" Do they have a link on the wonderful world-wide web?
Curiosity is killin' this cat








Dean


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (WI-TDI-Fan)*

Go to http://www.google.com .... type something like "Rebuild Koni" and hit enter. You will get few already on page one. Let's see if you can get better price


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

*Latest report: *
The Konis+Sofsport seem to handle better... I cannot quantify how they handle better yet... they just do not ride as jerky as before and the car is more planted. 
However, I am still acheiving same speed per corners as before, and one interesting thing I realized today was that my tires squeel MUCH MORE and MUCH sooner now?!!! Not sure why is that, could be the camber or something like that... any ideas?


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, refresh my memory, what was your setup before the latest?
PMB


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (4dBunny)*


_Quote, originally posted by *4dBunny* »_Alex, refresh my memory, what was your setup before the latest?
PMB

It's in my signature... haven't change my signature yet!


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (alexb75)*

I have installed 225/180 shine springs on koni shocks and to tell you the truth rear doesn't feel much stiffer than my previous sportline springs. Front is a big improvement, but rear could be stiffer. Car doesn't hop and bounce like it did before, so no doubt it handles better but i would like it stiffer. Does SRS still make 200lb rear springs that I can swap the 180s with ?


_Modified by TurboGTI2003 at 12:17 AM 6-21-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (TurboGTI2003)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TurboGTI2003* »_I have installed 225/180 shine springs on koni shocks and to tell you the truth rear doesn't feel much stiffer than my previous sportline springs. Front is a big improvement, but rear could be stiffer. Car doesn't hop and bounce like it did before, so no doubt it handles better but i would like it stiffer. Does SRS still make 200lb rear springs that I can swap the 180s with ?

_Modified by TurboGTI2003 at 12:17 AM 6-21-2004_

The reason that it doesn't feel as stiff is becasue you are now off the bimpstops.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex, how sure are you about that ? I am talking stickly rear suspension and not front. My current rear ride height is about the same with shine 180 springs as it was before with eibach springs and trimmed bump stops. So, considering the ride height is almost the same and springs don't feel much stiffer in the rear I think that a) previous springs weren't on bump stops or b) both springs would be on bump stops. Please correct me if I am wrong








Here is two pictures, taken on the same drive way . 
before








after








Edited, with a better picture to show closer angle.

_Modified by TurboGTI2003 at 1:27 AM 6-21-2004_


_Modified by TurboGTI2003 at 1:28 AM 6-21-2004_


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: (TurboGTI2003)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TurboGTI2003* »_I have installed 225/180 shine springs on koni shocks and to tell you the truth rear doesn't feel much stiffer than my previous sportline springs. Front is a big improvement, but rear could be stiffer. Car doesn't hop and bounce like it did before, so no doubt it handles better but i would like it stiffer. Does SRS still make 200lb rear springs that I can swap the 180s with ?

Two obvious questions : What do you have the Koni's set to, front and rear. Do you have the Shine Rear Sway installed ?
Other than that have you truly 'tested' the handling ? Improvement or degradation in ride quality, needs to also be associated with handling, i.e. ride quality is better but car now suffers from under/over steer, or ride quality is harsher but handling is close to neutral, etc. IMHO, one of the points of this entire thread has been to prove theories. While a 'seat of the pants' test of handling could be called subjective, comparing the individual's subjective results after a change in components or settings, does lend credability to the proof.








Dean


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (WI-TDI-Fan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_
Two obvious questions : What do you have the Koni's set to, front and rear. Do you have the Shine Rear Sway installed ?
Other than that have you truly 'tested' the handling ? Improvement or degradation in ride quality, needs to also be associated with handling, i.e. ride quality is better but car now suffers from under/over steer, or ride quality is harsher but handling is close to neutral, etc. IMHO, one of the points of this entire thread has been to prove theories. While a 'seat of the pants' test of handling could be called subjective, comparing the individual's subjective results after a change in components or settings, does lend credability to the proof.








Dean


Dean, I gave Pyce my very first driving impressions and wanted to wait till after a track day before making a public comment. All I am going to say for now though, is that handling improved by a very large margin, also braking improved and it's still comfortable. 
I do not have a shine swaybar, I am using neuspeed 28mm sway . I have not changed anything on the car other than springs front/back. I did not want to bring more than one variable to the table . Front struts set on 1 and 3/4 turns (maximum) from soft to stiff. Rear I will have to pull and check, I haven't changed them and I believe they are on 1 full turn from soft to stiff.
I have also just took another picture to try and capture closer angle.











_Modified by TurboGTI2003 at 3:18 AM 6-21-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (TurboGTI2003)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TurboGTI2003* »_Alex, how sure are you about that ? I am talking stickly rear suspension and not front. My current rear ride height is about the same with shine 180 springs as it was before with eibach springs and trimmed bump stops. So, considering the ride height is almost the same and springs don't feel much stiffer in the rear I think that a) previous springs weren't on bump stops or b) both springs would be on bump stops. Please correct me if I am wrong








Here is two pictures, taken on the same drive way . 


First of all, I didn't know you trimmed the buffers... it also looks a little higher on the Shine unless you measured before and after.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Ok, my latest impression about Koni+Sofport is that it's a little harder to drive! Not sure why! It also seems to understeer more in sharp slow-speed 90 degree corners and less on wide turns (like highway ramps)... also as mentioned tires squeel a little bit more. I can probably contribute some of this to alignment issues and maybe the uneven springs not settled yet. Also, need to change the rear stiffness. 
My ride quality has been improved in some areas and remained the same in others. There is DEFINATELY better ride on small joints on the road... the irregularities of roads are now absorbed better and not transferred entirely to the chasis. However, on the bigger bumps I still have almost the same impact harshness as before (Bilstein), in some cases more, in some cases less... it's a little hard to explain. 
I actually think my front is also a little too much right now... will probably go one step lower (11/15 --> 10/15) and change the rear to (half-turn or 3/4 turn) tomorrow.
Oh, one more thing. The car looks GREAT! I just can NEVER live with Shine look, it just looks stupid no matter what! The Sofsport is not too high, not too low... the front looks a little higher but it's becasue of the fender design... but it looks very sporty and not like 4X4 cars, it's ok for 17" and smaller wheels, may look a little high with 18"... it looks almost like a TT http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by alexb75 at 6:17 PM 6-20-2004_


_Modified by alexb75 at 6:18 PM 6-20-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

I just posted and was thinking. Isn't the cure for undesteer less rear grip?! If so, couldn't that be accomplished with softer rear spring/shocks? 
If I am right, I think this explain why Peter has acheived good performance with the softer rears... less grip in the rear and therefore less understeer.








I think the reason I am understeering is becasue of a very stiff rear... and probably by softening it, I could kill 2 birds with one stone... better ride and less understeer. Not sure if technically I am right... but if I am then it's silly to make the rear really stiff since it can actually degrade performance while losing ride comfort as well.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
First of all, I didn't know you trimmed the buffers... it also looks a little higher on the Shine unless you measured before and after.

Alex, no biggie. FWIW here are my shine numbers for all four corners on a flat surface, not angled driveway
front driver side : tire pressure 40psi
ground to fender 27 and 1/2
fender to center wheel 15 1/4
front passenger side: tire pressure 40psi
ground to fender 27 and 1/4
fender to center wheel 15 

driver rear : tire pressure 33psi
ground to fender 26 and 1/4
fender to center wheel 14
passenger rear : tire pressure 33psi
ground to fender 26 and 1/2
fender to center wheel 14 and 1/2


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I just posted and was thinking. Isn't the cure for undesteer less rear grip?! If so, couldn't that be accomplished with softer rear spring/shocks? ... I think the reason I am understeering is becasue of a very stiff rear... and probably by softening it, I could kill 2 birds with one stone... better ride and less understeer.

Usually you soften the end of the car that you want to _increase_ grip on. Perhaps the rear isn't stiff enough. Are you running a rear sway bar? What tire pressures are you running f/r?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_
Usually you soften the end of the car that you want to _increase_ grip on. Perhaps the rear isn't stiff enough. Are you running a rear sway bar? What tire pressures are you running f/r?

No RSB, I am at 36 PSI on Max performance tires. I thought it was exactly the opposite to what you said


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

36 all around?
Add a rear bar, drop front pressures 2 lbs, or raise the front end back up - (I know, you hate the 4x4 look, but it really does produce results) ... you'll still under-steer at the limit, but not as badly.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

36 all around!
I will never raise the front. It REALLY looks stupid when people do that... I had LESS understeer when I was lower... so your explanation does not necessarily explain what's happening. 
I am too stiff in the back for sure since the ride is not tolerable and worse than bilsteins... so I will soften it up, it may help. Not sure how this can be explained with theories... but it's what's happening. I believe more in practice then theory, I dont care if the theories about the suspension doesn't explain something, I only care if it's faster... The prime example is Peter with his mismatched setup that is achieving good results while everyone was telling him his setup is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (alexb75)*

f1forkvr6, i have shine springs front and rear and ns rsb. should I try 36psi cold front and rear , or something else ?
I just did some spirited driving today and my tire pressures went up 4psi front and 1-2psi rear from 40front/34rear.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Alex.....
Chris is right thought. Softening the rear is not going to reduce understeering! I went softer because I have ride quality issues on my roads and I spend a lot of my life in the car. My car does NOT handle better than a well balanced (spring wise) car. Every time I put back a stiffer spring in the rear and it is great, very different and quicker in the twisties, but then I take it out as it is uncomfortable for me for the week. I learn so much of how exactly to drive this car in the way it is, and because of that it is not really slow (generally speaking) when going for a drive with friends....... but fact is, it is always faster with proper spring ratio. In fact, many pages ago I said my favorite was Shine 225 front, Shine 150 rear and stock bars. But I can't stand it on the concrete, so had to depart with it....... your case is nothing to get alarmed. Just get those rears to about 20-25% (not more!!) and you will see how everything will be just fine. And please do take your time and explore slowly what this new setup is giving you. You may need to change your style little bit as to be faster. Really, take your time, do not expect miracle after few days, and most of all, after few miles. Anyway, by going softer in the rear (with the Konis) is not really like going softer in the rear with spring rates. Two very different things. By going to 20% rear (konis) you will get better rear traction on bumpy roads and you will lose something in the turn in, but that is pretty much it. However, the whole balance (the frequencies) will change and this will bring you better ride quality. Stiffer shocks is not really great for the bumpy streets, it really reduces traction, so go less rebound rear and front and start from there....... I have my front on stiff because of the stronger spring, but I will soon put a softer spring as to see how that would affect the front. I was trying few things this weekend, but will write about it later....
Anyway, you see how subjective ride quality is? Turbo just got Shine, stronger springs than Neuspeed SofSport and all of you on Konis, and he says the ride is great, but you say the ride on the SofSports so far is not so great..... And his Konis are on full stiff! .....But wat till he comes to SF







Or perhaps he is member of ironbutt.com .....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Ok, I just killed myself. This setup SUCKS








It was 1:45am and I tried to take a corner that I usually take with my old setup at around 100Km/h.... I lost control







I almost went into the ditch! The funny part was that a BMW was just behind me and took the freaking damn same corner at the same speed and turned ok.
I have no clue what to say







I trust all of you here, but I think this all roll center is BS








All I can say is that, Neuspeed Sport + Bilstein handles better than Neuspeed Sofsport + Koni (3/4 front, 1/3 rear) PERIOD. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
I am tired, gonna go to bed now!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I trust all of you here, but I think this all roll center is BS









I'm sorry you had a bad experience ... truly, these kinds of events are not fun. How did you go off? Did you under-steer and wind up with terminal push? Did you possibly drop the throttle, or brake mid-turn and snap off backwards?
I really hate to break it to you (because I know you really do understand), but minimizing and the roll moment, and optimizing the roll couple of your chassis is _critical_ for at the limit handling. Even if the only time you have an at the limit "moment" is in an emergency.
Time to find an auto-x playground to do some controlled testing at the limit.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (TurboGTI2003)*

John - tire pressures will increase 4 lbs or so even with less spirited driving, so that's perfectly normal (and another reason to take initial pressure readings first thing in the morning - before you drive anywhere).
Pressures depend a-lot on tire composition, size, chassis weight, driving style, etc .... what works on my car varies from tire brands (S-03PPs require less pressure than Toyo T1-S, or even RE750s). On my car ('97 Passat, VR6), and for my driving style, I like the front tires to be 2-3 pounds higher than the rear. Currently my RE750s are at 36f/34r at 60 deg F. OE recommended pressures are 32/32. The best thing you can do is to play with them. Very generally speaking, if you want to cure mild under-steer, and try lower pressures at the front (do not go below OE recommended, however, and note that turn-in may feel a bit less sharp), or higher pressures in the rear. The converse would hold true to tame a mild case of over-steer. Change in 2lb increments (you won't really notice a 1lb change) and drive on them fore a few days. Tire pressures are not a cure all, and are best used to fine tune your handling after you've pretty much sorted out the rest of your chassis.


----------



## SN2BDNGRZB55 (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_ Tire pressures are not a cure all, and are best used to fine tune your handling after you've pretty much sorted out the rest of your chassis.

I totally agree! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif When I was setting up my last car, the first thing I did was to make sure all of the tire preasure was equal, and to keep it equal until I found the right balance for my car. I started with Tokico (it was a Honda







, but bear with me, same principles apply) shocks for racing front and rear - very high dampening rate but not too hard. I used H&R DRAG springs all around, but found that I almost did what alexb75 did because I had too much oversteer (no tb's or scb's). I traded the fronts for a set of H&R Sprint springs (making the front kinda high), but after that it was very well balanced, almost a drift set up. Never used control/sway bars. After that I just adjusted tire preasure to mate my acceleration/driving style better. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

How did you lose control? Understeer? Oversteer? 
How warm were your tires? How warm was the road? Simple things such as road and tire temps make a large difference in how much grip you have. 
If it were my car, I would have set the koni's to 50% in front and rear, as 75% and 33% are more prone to understeer.......


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Took five days to read, but this is a great thread...*

Well, it took most of my spare time over five days, but I just finished reading this entire thread. I printed the print version (which has very small print) on the 17th, and it came to 266 pages! I did have a comment one one aspect/effect of the Shine geometry that no one mentioned. One additional thing that does happen when you go to the Shine geometry (nominally 1/2" up in front, 1" down in the rear) is that with the Jetta's 99" wheelbase (are the golf/GTI & NB the same?) you're also adding 0.9 degrees of positive (static) caster. Now, I don't know enough about how suspension geometry affects handling/feal/ride to know:
1) IF that's enough difference to be noticable.
2) If it IS. whether it'll make a positive change or a negative change. 
I'll have to leave 1 & 2 above to the more knowledgable people on this thread. 

At this point, my 2000 Jetta TDI is still on stock springs & shocks, but that'll change in the next few days. I'm gonna take things in real small steps at first, and everything I'm going to put on in this first round was purchased BEFORE I found this thread. Going on in this first round will be: Jetta VR6 front springs, Bilstein TCs front and rear, and the hollow Autotech rear bar. I'm still running stock size 196/65R15s, but I'm running Goodyear Eagle HRs on the front and HPs on the rear (there's no obvious visual difference between these two tires). 
Peace


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Took five days to read, but this is a great thread... (roscoe13)*

Alex, you must be very angry and disappointed and the world may seem falling on you, but please try to describe what exactly happened? The last thing we all here want is someone to have an accident. Please spend some time and try to describe what exactly happened..... And please, again, take your time with exploring this new to you setup. Specially if you are doing your testings on the street! 
EDIT - to add.... Where were your Front Koni set at that point? I hope you did not try to soften them as to see what happens and that was the reason you were in trouble. On strong springs in front you can not have low rebound, it is really ticket to bad behavior on the street!


_Modified by pyce at 10:19 AM 6-21-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Took five days to read, but this is a great thread... (pyce)*

Thanks for all the support guys. I was quite a bit tired so I think I didn't take the corner entry properly... and was looking at the speedometer to make sure I take it at a certain speed as I used to. Was just trying to compare it to Bilstein's.
I was turning left, I understeered pretty bad, I was just getting out of the road to the right... then I lifted the throttle to make it turn and played with the steering wheel... it stopped going to the right but then turned the other way around... I then had to correct that with steering/braking/throttle to take it under control... basically I first understeered quite a bit, and then when I corrected it I oversteered a little before getting back on the road. The car is just not setup right... 
Overall, the car just understeers more than I ever remember on my car (apart from stock). 
Peter: I am at 75% front and supposedly at 50% rear unless the rear has been screwed up at the install. 
Mike: The tires were warm as I was driving hard for about 20 mins... nothing like AutoX or track tempretures though. The street was cool, at around 20-25 degrees celcius (68-77) farenheit. 


_Modified by alexb75 at 11:15 AM 6-21-2004_


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Took five days to read, but this is a great thread... (alexb75)*

It sounds like the car behaved correctly with the way you have it set up. Understeer from too much entry speed combined with the shocks set up stiffer in the front, and then lift throttle oversteer. The brake pedal is your enemy whenever the steering wheel is turned. There are numerous ways to solve your problem:
1) Make your car understeer even more so that you can lift throttle and it will tuck in
2) Make your car more neutral so that the front end will grip better upon initial turn-in so you don't have to lift.
3) Slow the F*ck down. Slow in, fast out.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Took five days to read, but this is a great thread... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Thanks for all the support guys. I was quite a bit tired so I think I didn't take the corner entry properly... and was looking at the speedometer to make sure I take it at a certain speed as I used to. Was just trying to compare it to Bilstein's..... 

Alex, please be careful! This is the worse thing you can fall for. And I am talking to you because with all these spring changes and damper's settings I tried so far, I do the exact same thing like you - look at the speedo in specific points of well known curves as to have a point of reference and be able to evaluate the modifications. Yes, I know, you have to do it, other wise you would not know, but really be careful and study first where is the safest point in the curve where you can move your eyes for a second. Try to do it as fast as you can and also (for what is worth) try to do it after you are fully sit in the curve, not during turn-in and initial settlement, where corrections may need to occur....... I know we should not be even talking about this as the eye should be always on the road, but I am also realistic and know that no matter what I say to you - you are going to look at your speedo because you want to find out about your setups...... Just be safe and do it either before the curve (best!) or when you are well into the curve and the car is in steady smooth cornering, no corrections needed, etc..... It is your safety that matters the most!

_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I was turning left, I understeered pretty bad, I was just getting out of the road to the right... then I lifted the throttle to make it turn and played with the steering wheel... it stopped going to the right but then turned the other way around... I then had to correct that with steering/braking/throttle to take it under control... basically I first understeered quite a bit, and then when I corrected it I oversteered a little before getting back on the road. The car is just not setup right... ...

Well, now that you said you were distracted looking at the speedo, the whole above scenario is pretty much what would happen with almost ANY suspension combo on our cars. I am ready to bet you do the same with your old springs and Bilsteins, and you are going to lose it the exact same way.... At that particular moment you were not smooth, you were fast and were turning less than what would have been the turn for that curve, then you look at the road and noticed that you were going to go out, so you steer even more to get back, but the tires could not work well with the new angle and the car understeered. Then you lifted throttle and with the new steering input (more to the left) it made the rear wanting to go to the right. Nothing to blame on the SofSport-Konis. With a Shine Kit you could have even exit the road with your rear 9at that situation), I am not kidding you! 
Take your time, man! Be safe! Try few settings; try little bit different approach..... I mean, just play with it (safely!) for some time and then draw a conclusion. I am really confident that the setup does not suck, even if I never had it. You are just too hard on yourself and want results right out of the box. Really, take your time and be safe! It is meant to be for fun and for you to enjoy this











_Modified by pyce at 12:03 PM 6-21-2004_


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Took five days to read, but this is a great thread... (pyce)*

Lift throttle oversteer is a fact of life with *all* FWD dubs, even bone stock. 
I got a brand new Mk4 GTI-VR6 sideways on a test drive a couple years back
because I overcooked a decreasing radius turn a little, and lifted off. Not the 
fault of the suspension. It was entirely my fault. 
Also, every new suspension will have a little different balance than the old one.
You obviously shouldn't try to go out and drive it at 100% right away. Give it some time
to get used to how it feels. Play with the tire pressures a bit to tweak the balance
and if you're going to lift off the throttle midcorner to intentionally rotate the car, 
try doing it before you've totally maxed out your lateral traction. 
ian


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

So what you are saying is that, the stiffer the spring, the stiffer you can go with the shocks comfortably? 
What was the major complaint with the Neuspeed Sport/Bilstein Sport combo again? Was it jouncy on uneven and bumpy pavement? Or did it stick well on all types of pavement, but was uncomfortable?


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (yosemitesamiam)*

You're right, Peter and Mike... my problem is that I am trying to determine the limits too fast and on the streets (although it was 2am) I just didn't have time to goto a AutoX yet. The thing is that I am leaving for Europe tomorrow and won't have time to test this thing before I get back... so wanted to figure out as much as I could before I leave and before I sell my Bilstein/Neuspeed Sport. 
I know I made a mistake on the driving last night... but it seems that the new setup doesn't give enough feedback before it loses control, and I know that I have taken the same corner at the same speed with the Bilstein/Neuspeed sport before. I might have had a better entry before and hit the apex right on the money when I used to do it at that speed... it's really hard to compare since it's not only the setup, it's tempreture, tire pressure, and how well you take corners at each instance








I just put the fronts on 50% and I have less understeer. The ride has improved while turn-in reduced (just a little) and it's a little bouncy now (stiffer springs), specially when I come to a full stop. I think I will set it to 9/15 next... which I hope will be a good compromise and then will set the rears a little softer if I have time before I leave.
BTW, I will definately consider a BMW on my next car purchase. This 325 behind me didn't even break a sweat taking the same corner










_Modified by alexb75 at 12:51 PM 6-21-2004_


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

Speaking of selling...I've got a credit card with your name on it...how much for those Neuspeed sports/bilstein sports?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_I just put the fronts on 50% and I have less understeer.

Softer front, more grip


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (yosemitesamiam)*

On another note...I just read through Neuspeed's website on the MKIV site...it is my understanding that the SofSports and Sport springs have the same spring rate...what are the race springs? Anyone use those?
Also, why do they say that the front swaybar is a "must have" on lowered cars? Isn't putting a front bar on our cars a bad bad bad thing for understeer? Or would I need the extra clearance like they said, after putting on sport springs?
Thanks guys! This thread is 23 pages long and just getting good!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (yosemitesamiam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yosemitesamiam* »_On another note...I just read through Neuspeed's website on the MKIV site...it is my understanding that the SofSports and Sport springs have the same spring rate...what are the race springs? Anyone use those?

Even by Neuspeed's own admission (Greg Woo) the "Race" springs for the mark iv for are "appearance" springs, rather than performance springs. They're just too soft for the amount they lower.
The front bars that are "needed" aren't for increased wheel rate - they're to allow the bar to clear the axles and not rub. The same can be accomplished by adding revised end-links.


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

awesome! So then really the spring rates are all the same then...because the lower you go, the stiffer you also need to be...right?
And on the front sway...so the aftermarket bar that Neuspeed sells is the same size as the factory one? All I would need are different endlinks? That would be cool!
After all this is done, and I've settled on what I want to ride on (I'm leaning on Neuspeed sports/Bilstein Sports), would I even need a rear sway? I consider myself a spirited driver. I mostly drive on the freeway during the week, which consists of dodging old ladies and pieces of tire....but on the weekend, I like to go find a twisty somewhere!
Thanks again
Sam


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

Getting a bit off topic .... search around a bit, these things have been discussed a bunch of times. If you've looked and found nothing, perhaps start another thread with some specific questions and goals in mind? Not trying to be difficult .... just trying to preserve the focus of this thread ...


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*

You are right...sorry...I just get so excited and wound up reading, I have to speak!


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Tire pressures are not a cure all, and are best used to fine tune your handling after you've pretty much sorted out the rest of your chassis.

First I'd like to address this comment since others did (later I'll add a review of Neuspeed Sports and Koni Yellows as it pertains to this topic).
I've found that tire pressures, on a stock mkIV GTI, play a huge roll in determining the handling characteristics, both grip and balance. I've experienced this autocrossing my stock GTI on OEM 17" wheels and OEM tires (Michelin Pilots).
When I had the front tire pressure too low to prevent the tire from rolling onto the sidewall at approaching maximum cornering ability the car would understeer much earlier than I actually lost the ability to turn harder. With the tire pressures raised I would reach the point at which the tires reach maximum grip and the car would go into more of a sliding understeer rather than a pushing understeer. (I make the differentiation because in sliding understeer I could turn in a little early and hit the apex by sliding rather than turning the wheel too much and scrubbing speed.) If you're curious, I found that on OEM tires I had to raise the pressures to about 46 psi.
For rear tire pressure I found that it didn't need to be very high at all, about 38-40 psi would keep the rears from rolling onto the sidewall. The rear pressure affected the balance of the car, much as I imagine a rear sway bar would. I could increase or decrease lift throttle oversteer. At street tire pressure <36 psi i have never experienced oversteer of any sort. On an autox track I did regularly, provided I had proper entry speed and tire pressures.
Other people may describe these characteristics differently, but I find that it's very hard to compare different suspensions without equalizing the tires. For instance, if in fact you create better camber characteristics with an SRS suspension, you may cause the tires you roll more, affecting understeer. Just a thought. The Neuspeed Sport review will follow.


_Modified by virtual_dub at 6:57 PM 6-21-2004_


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: (virtual_dub)*

Neuspeed Sports / Koni Sport Adjustables vs Stock 2003 GTI 1.8t
Take these measurements with some error, I used a measuring tape but just eyballed the center of the wheel arc.
Ground to Wheel Arc:
Stock FL 26.5" FR 26.5" RL 27.25" RR 27.25"
Neuspeed FL 25.5" FR 25 2/3" RL 25 2/3" RR 25 2/3"
Hub Center to Wheel Arc:
Stock FL 14.75" FR 14.75" RL 15.25" RR 15.25"
Neuspeed FL 13.5" FR 13.75" RL 13.75 RR 13.5"
Handling Characteristics:
A week before I installed the suspension I started taking notice to different handling characteristics to compare. I didn't look at the speedometer or max out on the street as I don't really feel comportable. I do take some of my favorite turns very fast and keep pushing them harder. Konis are set at full stiff in the front and 1/2 stiff in the rear.
Body Roll:
Stock body roll is felt even on slow turning speeds, tossing the car through S-turns makes it even more apparent. I didn't find it intolerable on high speed turns, mostly because I was paying more attention to the road than the angle of the car. The Neuspeed Sports keep the car level at slower turning speeds. At the limit I would say both suspensions roll the same, if I had to choose the Neuspeed Sports might be slightly less roll. I think the increased rates of the Neuspeeds counters the greater roll moment. However, with the konis on full soft the roll is much greater than on full stiff.
Turn In:
Much better than stock. Not much to say other than that the car is much quicker to respond.
Understeer:
I believe it is reduced at lower cornering speeds and about the same at higher speeds. I might even lean towards saying it occurs sooner than stock. I think this agrees with the thoery of lowering the front and the camber curve.
Overall Cornering Ability:
Without checking the speedo or timing around a track I would say the Neuspeeds corner faster. This may just be my perception, but I think the reduced roll and better turn in, with more or less equivalent understeer makes me feel this.
Ride Quality:
Luckily the roads here in FL are like butter. Except in construction zones and on bridges, there are no expansion joints, potholes, or large cracks. I believe I've experienced hitting the rear bump stops on a large bump where the rear jolted up suddenly after I hit it. With the konis on full soft the ride is very smooth. On full stiff it can feel very bouncy at times if I hit the expansion joints at the right period.
Questions/Comments are welcome. I've been reading this post since the beginning and finally decided. I happy with my choice because I think I've kept similar properties to stock while getting a better look.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: (virtual_dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_I've found that tire pressures, on a stock mkIV GTI, play a huge roll in determining the handling characteristics, both grip and balance.
Noticeable (i.e. big) difference on pretty much any chassis -- agreed -- just not the place to _start_ correcting the inherent handling compromises in our VWs. Sort the chassis/suspension set-ups first ... fine tune with swaybars, and tire pressures.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ …. Well, it took most of my spare time over five days, but I just finished reading this entire thread. I printed the print version (which has very small print) on the 17th, and it came to 266 pages! 

I never thought someone who finds this topic late in the development would ever read all that pages, but I guess you are a particular case ☺ I had been planning myself to read it all over again one of these days, as with time we all change opinions, find new things, discover the mistakes, etc. and was wondering when all this read at once would even make sense as I am sure some of us may even contradict ourselves if post-samples are taken from posts on page 2 and page 20…… 


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ …… I did have a comment one aspect/effect of the Shine geometry that no one mentioned. One additional thing that does happen when you go to the Shine geometry (nominally 1/2" up in front, 1" down in the rear) is that with the Jetta's 99" wheelbase (are the golf/GTI & NB the same?) you're also adding 0.9 degrees of positive (static) caster. Now, I don't know enough about how suspension geometry affects handling/feel/ride to know:
1) IF that's enough difference to be noticeable.
2) If it IS. whether it'll make a positive change or a negative change…. 

In theory the more caster would give more increase of camber when turning the wheel (steering). It is interesting to see by how much, and it is in the plans of doing this precise simulation in the other “McPherson” topic we have (the link is in the FAQ, if you have missed it). The Caster changes even more with lowering the front, so it does not happen only with the Shine suspension. The difficult part is to answer your questions 1 and 2, because in terms to be noticeable, we have to try the same spring rate on the rear, but with a first pare low and second pare stock ride height, then we will know for sure the feel. I guess coilover owners can help us here big time, but so far only one is willing to work on this and he is not around for the moment. The thing is, when you install a Shine Kit, so many other things change too, so it is impossible to evaluate what exactly is given by the increased Caster…… I also guess Dick can give you the best answer as I am sure he tested extensively different rear springs, this achieving different caster. You will really do well if you call him directly at his shop and ask him these same questions. And if he is not available, talk to Eli, I am sure he will give you the same answer.

_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ ….. At this point, my 2000 Jetta TDI is still on stock springs & shocks, but that'll change in the next few days. * I'm gonna take things in real small steps at first *, and everything I'm going to put on in this first round was purchased BEFORE I found this thread. Going on in this first round will be: Jetta VR6 front springs, Bilstein TCs front and rear, and the hollow Autotech rear bar. I'm still running stock size 196/65R15s, but I'm running Goodyear Eagle HRs on the front and HPs on the rear (there's no obvious visual difference between these two tires)…..

Great! I like very much the bold part of the quote…..You (and this is for all of you stock guys who are reading here!) have a unique opportunity to do the right thing first – which is “not to screw up big time” like many of us did right from the beginning! The very big mistake many here do (and I am big time in this mix too) is that we start modifying right away, with the car still smelling fresh from the dealership…. Why? Because we think we know and we also think that others know even better, so we start reading around places like this one, and what do you really learn first when you subscribed to the vortex? That the stock suspension “sucks” and therefore it has to be changed immediately. And that, right there, is the big mistake! Why? Not because the stock suspension is really fantastic, but because we are missing the opportunity to fist learn what the stock suspension really gives us. What is designed to do and how does it work on the street, on the track. What are the real limits and how something more could be extracted by simply learning to use it differently (if it gives better results) and only when we really have profound understanding and there are no more secrets of what that package can really do – only then we should actually (and very carefully) decide what would be the next small step in modifying the package as to resolve a particular detail of it’s behavior and thus gain something more from all this……. But many of us do not go this way. We missed the train completely, going all the way with entirely new springs and dampers and sway bars and wheels and tires in one week and, yes, we got something in there, but how much better really is? Well, many of us do not know……… And is it really better? And that is a big question, because I ma sure there are rides out there that absolutely do not handle better than a bone stock car, but the owners do not know it and do not even care to know it. So, today, after few things I had the pleasure to try, I am very confident in saying that you are doing the right thing – going the “real small steps at first”! That is the ticket to get to the “big results” later.. Good luck and keep us posted!


_Modified by pyce at 6:30 PM 6-21-2004_


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

To quote Mr. Shine:

<<<<A few simple corrections! We never increase caster as that is a huge step backwards on a FWD car! There are no competitive cars running higher rear spring rates! This is a sign of not enough rear bar for instance a street 28mm bar.
This is nowhere near enough stiffness.Racing and street use are different and you should never try to mix them. The results will be poor and maybe dangerous!
Dick Shine >>>>


----------



## yosemitesamiam (Jan 31, 2002)

*Re: (alexb75)*

I wish someone here on this forum was close to me...I want to take any of you for a ride to show you my definition of a rough ride. I'd also like to take a ride in a performance upgraded vehicle to see what it is you guys rant, rave and curse. I can't always visualize what it is you guys talk about. 
So...if ever you are in my end of the woods...I work in Santa Clarita, and I live in Glendora. I travel through Pasadena by way of the 210 freeway. I would be willing to drive the truck one day...this would be worth it to me. I just need someone else's feedback who feels their VW too rough a ride, to witness and experience my kidney kicking ride.
Not because I want to be offtopic, I'm not...I just need a first hand experience as to what other's forsee and what that means to me, rather than having to guess at the English Language version.
Thanks
Sam


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (pyce)*

Latest update:
First on the install. One problem I found was that there's a hook on the inside of the strut (at the bottom) and on one side it is NOT hooked properly! Not sure how big of a problem that is! Also, on one rear shock there was no upper dust cover (a black plastic cap). Let me know how big of an issue is this! 
I also just adjusted the rears... such a PAIN in the A$#. Had to completely remove the shock, dust boot, bumpstop, upper bearing (for people who don't know). It also was hard to put back on, after I put the botton nut in, had to lower the car very slowly, put some pressure on the springs to push the shock up to reach the top holes. I guess I'll get better with practice.
I am not sure what it was set before, since I just turned it around to get to where it stops and then tested it to see if it's stiffest or softest. However, I beleive one side was either at stiffest or softest and one side in the middle. That could have contributed to bad handling.
I put it at 3/4 of a turn from softest, and now the car ride fine. I can now feel what a Koni setup ride means. It's very nice riding now, almost like stock. I think this is as stiff as I go on the street. 
I didn't try much of handling, but it seems to be balanced now. I am at 1 turn front, 3/4 turn rear. This will be probably my last drivign impressions before I leave. 
Thanks a lot for all the help guys. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_.... Also, on one rear shock there was no upper dust cover (a black plastic cap). Let me know how big of an issue is this!...

GREAT! Fantastic opportunity for you to see where the "C" buffers you now have are compare to the top of the shock! 
Also, it will be easier (faster) for you to install the shock at the top first, when the car is lifted, more clearance for you to work! Then you slowly lower it as for the bottom to get in place and then bolt it in there....
Man, I do not know the rest, but I feel big relief now that at least you have fine ride quality! You enjoy your stay in Europe and take it easy with the suspension thing. We will talk more when you come back








edited because I can't spell










_Modified by pyce at 8:44 PM 6-21-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_It's very nice riding now, almost like stock. I think this is as stiff as I [want to] go on the street. 


The VWVortex suspension collective breathes a sigh of relief


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Latest update:
First on the install. One problem I found was that there's a hook on the inside of the strut (at the bottom) and on one side it is NOT hooked properly! Not sure how big of a problem that is! Also, on one rear shock there was no upper dust cover (a black plastic cap). Let me know how big of an issue is this! 


Sounds like your front strut is not fully seated in the spindle. Definitely fix that before you bend the strut body. The black plastic cap on the rear is not critical.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: (tyrolkid)*

Probably last post before I leave. Just wanted to thank everyone who helped me setup and fix my suspension. I am now having a much better setup at 3/4 turn rear, 1 turn front. 
The ride is just awesome and the handling has also improved, I do not understeer as much and the car is easier to drive. Will not do anything for the next 6 weeks until I get back.
Thanks a lot, Peter, Winston, Ian, Mike, Chris and the rest of the folks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Ride Comfort

Ride Problem
The problem with the above, however, is that the shocks are much stiffer than they would be on a normal passenger car suspension. It's the way competition cars are set up (track cars are in fact often even stiffer, much stiffer), and a lot of people like it that way -- but it's pretty firm; too firm for me, in fact, on broken Boston streets.
If the car didn't pitch, I could dial the shocks back down to the 1/2 turn front / 3/8 turn rear range, where the ride comfort (when the car wasn't pitching) was very good, and where the handling was just fine for me (not max-handling, but not bad at all). But because of the pitch, that's not an option.

Conjecture
So here's the question I'm asking myself: if I reduced the front spring rate a bit, and cranked up the rear spring a titch, could I eliminate enough of the pitching to permit more "normal" shock damping? And if I did that, would the ride comfort actually improve? (Peter et al report a lot of ride degradation the moment you raise the rear spring rate -- but that's always been with stiff shocks. If I raised the rear spring rate, but lowered the shock stiffness, would things get better or worse?)

That's the end of this long, long series of reports. Cheers, everyone, and please have a productive week!
- W (Ceilidh)
_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:18 AM 6-14-2004_

_Modified by Ceilidh at 12:24 AM 6-14-2004_

Hi,
Sorry I'm so late - but anyway finally getting around to reading these explanations and trying to juggle the different explanations and goals in my head. I'm now slightly confused - so the idea for a comfort-oriented Shine set-up seems to be to find a setup that minimizes the pitching motion and control the vertical bounce w/in the 1 - 1.5 Hz range, while providing improved roadholding and slightly more neutral balance for handling. My question is if the Bilsteined or stiffened Koni dampened w/ Shine spring setup do both so well, how does the spring and shock stiffness enter the comfort equation? Is it b/c the car now jolts over bumps rather than having the springs absorb the bumps and the shocks controlling how the springs bounce? 
Sorry ....
Also a friend who has driven my car while it was still in the full SRSS kit (bar off now and returned to Shine since it broke) suggested that the Bilstein HDs were somewhat soft on rebound ... what does that mean and does that contribute to ride discomfort? 
If I recall Peter mentioned that the Konis were adjustable on rebound only ... 

Thanks!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (Mencius01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mencius01* »_
Hi,
...so the idea for a comfort-oriented Shine set-up seems to be to find a setup that minimizes the pitching motion and control the vertical bounce w/in the 1 - 1.5 Hz range, while providing improved roadholding and slightly more neutral balance for handling. My question is if the Bilsteined or stiffened Koni dampened w/ Shine spring setup do both so well, how does the spring and shock stiffness enter the comfort equation? Is it b/c the car now jolts over bumps rather than having the springs absorb the bumps and the shocks controlling how the springs bounce? 


Hi M,
If anything's unclear, please tell me!
1) We're finding that shock stiffness is as important (or in some ways more important) as spring stiffness in governing ride comfort.
2) The stock car has front & rear spring rates that control pitching; hence it's possible to use soft shock settings that are very comfortable. These settings allow quite a bit of vertical bounce in the 1-1.5 hertz range, but that type of bouncing is very comfortable.
3) The Shine front car does not have the right F & R rates to control pitch, and therefore damping has to be much stronger than optimal (from a ride perspective). With soft shock settings, the very stiff Shine front spring actually absorbs bumps very well -- but the car pitches like crazy. With a drastically stiffened setting, the pitch is gone, but the bump absorption is much worse.
4) Although Konis are rebound-adjustable, there appears to be some "bleed" into the compression -- when we up the rebound, we appear to increase the compression somewhat as well. But we're not sure how important this effect is. In any case the Bilsteins appear to be harsher in compression than are the Konis (the Bilsteins definitely jolt on hitting a sharp bump at speed; the Konis are much better in this regard).
5) What's more apparent with the Konis is what happens immediately after a bump: with stiff Konis (and presumably Bilsteins too), the car feels like it's pulled right back down to the ground after the bump passes; there's no float at all. On the highway, this abrupt "pull-down" is not necessarily uncomfortable -- a girlfriend would have trouble applying makeup because of it, but it doesn't actually jolt. The problem (for me) is at lower speeds on cratered Boston roads: with super stiff rebound, the car "falls" into big potholes and crashes/jolts at the bottom. In contrast, with softer shock settings, the wheels seem to be able to descend into the holes on their own and the chassis stays much more level.
6) The upshot is that with the stiff Shine front plus soft stock rear, I can either be comfortable at low speeds (with soft shock settings) and uncomfortable on the highway (because of the pitching), or I can be comfortable on the highway (with stiff shocks that kill the pitching) and uncomfortable on awful low-speed roads (because of the "falling" and jolting).
7) In most parts of the country, the ride would probably be fine! Even in Boston, the vast majority of the roads cause no problems at all. I just seem to spend a large amount of my life driving on 17th century streets that have been widened, narrowed, cobblestoned, decobblestoned, dug up, re dug up, patched, repatched, frost-heaved, and neglected to the point that it's really rather amazing; on those streets, the Shine front has some comfort issues.
Cheers!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*..... Back to (almost) Stock....*

Winston….
I just finished re-reading all your posts in regards of the Stock Suspension with Koni on all four corners and then all the latest posts you wrote in regards of the Shine Front / Stock Rear with Koni all around. Reading all of this at once (instead of day by day as they were posted) kid of helped me to put it more “together” in my head. I first would like to say one more time a big “Thank You Very Much!” because the work you pulled on this is simply outstanding. Just reading all of this requires a lot of time, so I can only imagine the enormous time you spent to experiment all of the described AND to sit down and write about it in such a detailed and profound way. You opened my eyes for many things that I would have never even looked at into before. We do not know each other, so like with everyone else on the Internet, I always had some sort of “reservation” when I was reading about all the previous setups you tried, but when you got the Shine front in your car (this way having your ride as close as it can get to mine) it was clear to me that I can fully take every word of yours to the bank, because the description you gave to that combo was simply right on what I had been experiencing, but I could have never described it the way you did. Many reading here may not put much meaning into this moment, but I think it is very important because we had a way to “synchronize” our thoughts and understandings. Now I know, when you say a word, what exactly do you mean, what exactly is behind that word! ….. With this in mind, I had to go back and this time read again all those outstanding write ups you did, because this time I know I can take all the observations and put the right meaning behind them. At this point, from reading your posts and knowing only now what they actually mean, I got an interesting conclusion (well, interesting only to me I guess), which is: I never had the chance to explore what the Stock springs all around give with Koni Yellow all around as I somehow took it for granted that such setup would be “one step below”, but it is not really true and such setup may have a lot more to offer than what I thought. I just simply ignored it years ago when was time for suspension and went too far too fast, missing that important “middle” step. And then I give advises to people that should first fully learn what their stock suspension gives them and then upgrade slowly, but I myself did not go that way few years back, because I was even more ignorant then and didn’t think that the problem (then) was the driver and not the suspension….. So, I missed the opportunity to actually discover what a stock car really is, but now from your posts I am pretty convinced that it is essential to know the stock car, and that only this way future comparison can be done accurately. So, I think I will make a step back here and put the Front Stock springs back in the car and drive it for some time. Will keep the Konis there, as the stock dampers could be pretty much simulated (even if not accurately) if the Konis are on full soft all around. As stupid as it sounds, I think only now I am capable of understanding more in dept what the stock suspension was meant to do and how it is doing it, so now is much better moment to try it. ……. I guess it will be like at age of 35 going back to your old country which you left at age of 10







…. Thanks, Winston, I would have never gone this way if it were not for your detailed posts, and I would have missed something very important.


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (almost) Stock.... (pyce)*

Pyce - Bravo, well said ! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Having had the opportunity to follow this tread for some time, I'm going to use the experience of others when it comes time to my suspension. As you suggest, I'm going to 'play' with stocks springs over Koni's and work-up (or down depending upon the results) from there. In the process I hope to document the incremental changes and results. This process should begin shortly. As of right now, I'm making a routine of driving over some 'test sections' of highway so that I have a firm grasp of what my stock setup gives me and to use a benchmark during upgrades.
To all, thanks for a great thread. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
OBTW, maybe those of you that have gone to the great expense of experimenting could provide a synopsis of where you are at now - Make/MY, front spring, rear spring, front shock & setting, rear shock & setting, long or short bumpstops, rear sway brand and whether i or out, tires & pressure.
Dean


----------



## Cadenza_7o (Jan 23, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (almost) Stock.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_At this point, from reading your posts and knowing only now what they actually mean, I got an interesting conclusion (well, interesting only to me I guess), which is: I never had the chance to explore what the Stock springs all around give with Koni Yellow all around as I somehow took it for granted that such setup would be “one step below”, but it is not really true and such setup may have a lot more to offer than what I thought. I just simply ignored it years ago when was time for suspension and went too far too fast, missing that important “middle” step. And then I give advises to people that should first fully learn what their stock suspension gives them and then upgrade slowly, but I myself did not go that way few years back, because I was even more ignorant then and didn’t think that the problem (then) was the driver and not the suspension….. So, I missed the opportunity to actually discover what a stock car really is, but now from your posts I am pretty convinced that it is essential to know the stock car, and that only this way future comparison can be done accurately. So, I think I will make a step back here and put the Front Stock springs back in the car and drive it for some time. Will keep the Konis there, as the stock dampers could be pretty much simulated (even if not accurately) if the Konis are on full soft all around. As stupid as it sounds, I think only now I am capable of understanding more in dept what the stock suspension was meant to do and how it is doing it, so now is much better moment to try it.

Ah Hah!!! 
Pyce, this was MY sentiment when I began looking into suspension upgrade for my Bug, my daily driver. Since it came with OE Sports Package, I replaced the stock dampers with Bilstein HDs and added the Autotech rear bar. This was also Dick Shine's recommendation (if I wasn't willing to go with his set-up). He ranks it higher than the many so-called "sport" set-ups. It is the "conservative" approach of improving ride-control & handling without severely diminishing comfort. High-pressure Bilstein HDs aren't as good as Konis and twin-tube shocks in absorbing the smaller bumps, especially at speeds below 60. So with my 17" rims and 225/45 tires, I feel a bit more of the "poor" road surface than I wanted. 16' wheels give you more play room. 
The rear bar increases spring rate only when lateral weight transfer occurs: cornering. The small increase in discomfort when the rear wheels ride over uneven bumps is tolerable.
I can take the twisties significantly faster than stock but still find the Mk4 chassis dynamics unrefined. But it's something I've come to accept in a front-driver with no LSD and is high off the ground. Being smooth helps... how you load the suspension, turn the steering wheel, modulate the gas/brake pedals help increase your overall speed. 
So come back and let us know your how you like stock springs with Konis.










_Modified by Cadenza_7o at 1:18 PM 6-23-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ..... Back to (Cadenza_7o)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cadenza_7o* »_Being smooth helps... how you load the suspension, turn the steering wheel, modulate the gas/brake pedals help increase your overall speed.

THIS is the most important thing to remember - regardless of suspension setup. In competition, a great driver in a crappy car, will always beat a crummy driver in a great car. And on the street, a great driver in a crummy car, will always be safer than a dummy in a great car.
Get thee all to a drivers school, auto-x, kart track ... and LISTEN to what the instructors and better drivers tell you ... 
This has been a fantastic thread. Great job everyone!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (almost) Stock.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_.....So, I think I will make a step back here and put the Front Stock springs back in the car and drive it for some time. Will keep the Konis there, as the stock dampers could be pretty much simulated (even if not accurately) if the Konis are on full soft all around......

Hi Peter,
Glad to hear our Shine Front experiences have dovetailed(!), and it's interesting to hear that we will soon have traded suspensions.








A few notes on your going back to stock:
1) Even on full-soft, I found the Koni Yellows to be much firmer than the stock shocks. The handling might be reasonably close (as that's dominated by rebound, which at full-soft is somewhat-but-not-incredibly stiffer than stock), but the ride won't be similar: the Konis have much stiffer compression than stock, and thus the Koni ride (at least on my GTI) was never as good as stock.
2) I'm sure you're fully aware (!)







, but for the sake of everyone else: please note that I have a GTI, which has the equivalent of the "Sport" suspension on the Jetta, whereas you have a non-Sport Jetta. As you'll recall from my email to you, my one experience in a 2.0 Golf was pretty different from what I feel in my GTI, and thus I'd expect your Jetta experience to differ as well. In particular you might feel considerably more initial roll than I did in my GTI, and a more distinct "stiffening up" as you transition onto the bumpstops. (But also as I mentioned in the email, the stock 2.0 suspension was also a lot of fun!)
3) Along those lines, you might want to get a new set of stock (tall) rear bumpstops, and install them on your car. From your work on the other thread (consistent with my experience in the 2.0), those stops appear to play a significant role in the stock car's handling, and with your current cut-down stops you might find more roll and more understeer than the stock suspension is designed to give.
Anyway, keep us posted, and looking forward to hearing your impressions. Cheers!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (Ceilidh)*

Winston..... I would actually like ot explore little bit more the stock configurations across the A4 platform, so could you please do me a favor and see what is the paint code on your stock Front and Rear springs? Thanks








edit - Also, please give me your year model and engine code too.....


_Modified by pyce at 3:27 PM 6-23-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*

Winston.... tell me, please, that your front GTI spring color code is the following picture, PLEASE!







..... and if so, knowing that your front spring is 148 lb/in - we got the spring rate for all the Sport Package Front Springs from there, following the percentage:








Now, I guess your car is not 2002, but it is earlier years, so the color codes would change but here is the deal ..... if anyone else who reads here has a 2002 or 2003 GTI 1.8T (like Winston) then please verify whether your front springs do have color codes that match one of the above. This way we will know which color code from 2002 and 2003 correspond to Winston's earlier model year color codes. I only hope that VW did not change by much the spring rate between the GTI in 2000, 2001 and 2002, 2003...... But regardless, we will get somewhere from here. I so much hope that the GTI has color codes on the "weaker" side, which means that we have a lot of options (from V6 24V) to go significantly stronger in the front while keeping the same (or taller) ride height......


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*

Awesome Peter, where'd you come up with that? Got similar info for rear springs? You're right, now all we need is one hard data point, and we've got them all! 
Over the last two nights I put in the 2K1 Jetta VR6 front springs (2B/3W) and Bilstein TCs all around, rear springs from the 2K1 VR6 were the same 3G/1S color code as my factory 2000 TDI rears, so I didn't change them. Didn't mount the Autotech rear bar yet, but I did install the shock-end mounts for the bar while I had the bolts out. Wanted to get a feel for the what the springs/shocks gave me before I put the bar in. I put the front springs & struts in two nights ago, the 2B/3W VR6 springs are 2.25" shorter free length than the factory (2G/2P if I remember correctly) front springs, but they gave me almost exactly the same front ride height. The increased front spring rate gave me very noticably less roll, apparent understeer, and brake dive, but with the stock 60K mile rear shocks, I had some pitch issues since the rear was now noticably underdamped compared to the front. Turnin seemed to be improved as well. After installing the rear TCs last night, to pitch issues seem to be gone, and the car has a more balanced feel. Due to traffic, I took one of may bailout routes to work this morning, which puts me over a couple miles of dirt roads, with the old springs/shocks, I got bounced around quite a bit, but with the new setup it felt like I was glued to the road even over all those bumps. As for ride comfort, well, before the upgrades my factory shocks (well, I assume they'd been on the car since new, they were VW shocks, the car had 57K on it when I bought it, so I can't be sure) the car kinda floated over the roads, with no real feel for the road at all. It was fairly nice on small bumps, but larger bumps left you with too many bounces after the bump. The ride is, of course, a bit firmer now, but still quite comfy. Peter, I don't have any expansion joints to deal with in Northern VA, so I don't know how it would be on those.
Several pages back there was discussion about a "guide" for first steps in upgrading your suspension. Admittedly, I havn't tried some of the other possibilities but this certainly seems like a good first step in terms of bang for the buck...
Peace


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (roscoe13)*


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ ….Awesome Peter, where'd you come up with that? Got similar info for rear springs? You're right, now all we need is one hard data point, and we've got them all! 

It is actually all in the “etka”. Geoff W. discovered it some time ago. The only issue is that it is not presented in the way you see it here, but it is through codes and then you have to go on a different page and discover which code corresponds to which weight class, etc. Basically, the issue is that is extremely time-consuming, because on top of everything the spring codes vary through the years. Also, there is an incredible number of springs available, so have to go through all of them and get all weights, and only then you can select just the stronger ones. As soon as Winston tells me which year GTI he has, I will try to see his color codes, so we can have better picture of how really VW intended to tune (sport package) these cars……. As for the rears, that is even bigger PITA, because they are not listed as the fronts in weight categories, but only as codes, so I am trying to cross the codes with another catalog I have here, but it is not all as clear as the fronts. Anyway, the rear springs are only very few. So it will be easier once the decoding can occur…… It is really time consuming and I am not sure I can do this as fast as I wish…


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ ….Over the last two nights I put in the 2K1 Jetta VR6 front springs (2B/3W) and Bilstein TCs all around, rear springs from the 2K1 VR6 were the same 3G/1S color code as my factory 2000 TDI rears, so I didn't change them. ……. Wanted to get a feel for the what the springs/shocks gave me before I put the bar in. I put the front springs & struts in two nights ago, the 2B/3W VR6 springs are 2.25" shorter free length than the factory (2G/2P if I remember correctly) front springs, but they gave me almost exactly the same front ride height. The increased front spring rate gave me very noticably less roll, apparent understeer, and brake dive, but with the stock 60K mile rear shocks, I had some pitch issues since the rear was now noticably underdamped compared to the front. Turnin seemed to be improved as well…. 

Yes, the TDI front spring is (at least for 2002 and 2003) a 2 Green/ 2 Pink. I will spend some time later and try to see by how many percent did you increase the front spring rate. Now, few questions I have for you (very interesting write-up):
1. When you said the VR6 spring “almost” gave you the same right height – do you sit lower or higher now? Did you have the spacer in there and/or did you install one after, with the new VR6 springs?
2. About the “apparent understeer” – could you elaborate more? It makes sense that increasing the front spring rate with everything else being the same (stock rears) would lead you to more understeer, but would be nice if you can explain little bit more on what exactly happens there.
3. Very interesting about the brake dive – with the new front struts and new front stronger springs, you should not have more dive. I do not know how to interpret this one. Yes, dive can be corrected with rear rebound, but if you did not change anything in the rear, the only variable is the front and the front is now stiffer (in compression!) so it should eliminate some of the dive….


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_After installing the rear TCs last night, to pitch issues seem to be gone, and the car has a more balanced feel….. 

Tell me more about the understeer, turn in and brake dive, now that you have the rear dampers in there. Did you notice difference in any other areas, except comfort? Thanks…

_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_Several pages back there was discussion about a "guide" for first steps in upgrading your suspension. Admittedly, I havn't tried some of the other possibilities but this certainly seems like a good first step in terms of bang for the buck...

This seems actually like a great first step and eventually it may be even last step if purely street use is intended. The more I explore these things, the more I am getting convinced that for street use there is certain limit that comes very early and after that point, there is no point. “Limit” intended as: Once you do few small mild upgrades, you improve the characteristics of the car to certain point (again, purely on the street we are talking!) and what ever you do after does not longer give substantial gains, but contributed to a lot more loses like comfort, easier operation, idiot-proof behavior, etc….. I am so much looking forward to go back to almost-stock and joint the fun in exploring that “mild” upgrade…
Actually, the plan is to purchase (somehow) the stiffest VW A4 front spring and install that one instead of my stock spring. The 2 Blue / 4 White looks like the stiffest so far, and it looks like it is coming as a Sport Package on V6 Wagons. It may be really difficult to find it through the classifieds, but I guess I can settle with the 2 Blue / 2 White or even the one you have – 2 Blue / 3 White. That one at least would be easy to find I guess….. 
As for the “guide” for the suspension upgrades, Winston is writing those papers and is doing an outstanding job. He is going to install a Front SofSport (Neuspeed) in about a week and I guess that step would give us even more on how the “curve” of compromise looks like between front spring rate, comfort and handling. Then we will also include the whatever stronger front spring I have in the mix, and eventually the “guide” may start making sense….


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_It is really time consuming and I am not sure I can do this as fast as I wish…

Don't kill your self on my account...


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Yes, the TDI front spring is (at least for 2002 and 2003) a 2 Green/ 2 Pink. I will spend some time later and try to see by how many percent did you increase the front spring rate. Now, few questions I have for you (very interesting write-up):
1. When you said the VR6 spring “almost” gave you the same right height – do you sit lower or higher now? Did you have the spacer in there and/or did you install one after, with the new VR6 springs?

I had no spacers with the original springs, and still am without. Best I can tell is the same to maybe 1/8" lower, hard to measure that acurately. I'm 15" center to fender in the front.


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_2. About the “apparent understeer” – could you elaborate more? It makes sense that increasing the front spring rate with everything else being the same (stock rears) would lead you to more understeer, but would be nice if you can explain little bit more on what exactly happens there.

I think the lower roll and resulting less tendancy for camber to go positive more than compensate for the increased understeer one would otherwise expect from an increase in front-end stiffness. I havn't pushed it to the limits yet, as one approaches the limits it may very well have more understeer than it would have stock.


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_3. Very interesting about the brake dive – with the new front struts and new front stronger springs, you should not have more dive. I do not know how to interpret this one. Yes, dive can be corrected with rear rebound, but if you did not change anything in the rear, the only variable is the front and the front is now stiffer (in compression!) so it should eliminate some of the dive….

I should have worded it more clearly. I've definately got LESS brake dive now.

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Tell me more about the understeer, turn in and brake dive, now that you have the rear dampers in there. Did you notice difference in any other areas, except comfort? Thanks…

Understeer and brake dive I've already addressed. The car just responds faster to steering input now. Simple things like quick lane changes actually happen quickly now, where they didn't before, the car pretty much had to roll before it did anything. Of course, much of that could have been due to rear shocks that were not serving any purpose other than ballast, and front struts that did nothing but hold the spindles and springs in place







I havn't had as much of a chance to play on the twisties with the rear shocks installed, so I'll have to get back to you on what affect they had on handling...

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_This seems actually like a great first step and eventually it may be even last step if purely street use is intended. The more I explore these things, the more I am getting convinced that for street use there is certain limit that comes very early and after that point, there is no point.

Yeah, and driving the car for a while at this first step will allow me to better assess what I want the 'final' (I'm beginning to think this car is going to be like my Jeep, it's never quite finished...) setup to be...


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Actually, the plan is to purchase (somehow) the stiffest VW A4 front spring and install that one instead of my stock spring. The 2 Blue / 4 White looks like the stiffest so far, and it looks like it is coming as a Sport Package on V6 Wagons. It may be really difficult to find it through the classifieds, but I guess I can settle with the 2 Blue / 2 White or even the one you have – 2 Blue / 3 White. That one at least would be easy to find I guess….. 

Yeah, the 2B/2W & 2B/3W seem to be pretty common, probably the 2B/3W is the more common of the two. Of course, if you did end up with the 2B/3W, that'd give us one more pair of vehicle with the same springs, although you'd have the Koni's and I'd have the TCs. 

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_As for the “guide” for the suspension upgrades, Winston is writing those papers and is doing an outstanding job.

All of his posts on this thread have been outstanding in my opinion!

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ He is going to install a Front SofSport (Neuspeed) in about a week and I guess that step would give us even more on how the “curve” of compromise looks like between front spring rate, comfort and handling. Then we will also include the whatever stronger front spring I have in the mix, and eventually the “guide” may start making sense….

That'll be more great data to have...
Peace


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (roscoe13)*


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ ... I'm 15" center to fender in the front......

That, right there is where a front Shine 225 would put you with no spacer (well, at least on my car) so it is perfect for this next experiment! Thanks a lot!


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
.... As soon as Winston tells me which year GTI he has...


Top of page 20:

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Review: Setup
The car in question is a 2000 GTI 1.8T, on stock 195/65-15 wheels and tires (Goodyear LS -- a very low-performance, ride-optimized tire), on which the only previous modification was the replacement of the OEM shocks by Koni Sports (Yellows) front and rear.


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

EDIT: Moved data to stock spring rate thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...64067



_Modified by RichB at 1:24 PM 6-25-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Winston.... tell me, please, that your front GTI spring color code is the following picture, PLEASE! .....

Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay -- I've been driving for the last 8 hours(!), but providentially I now happen to be where my old springs are stored, and thus I can take a look at the code....








Well.....the paint spots are all faded, but it looks like it was once something like pink-white-white, or red-yellow-yellow, or rose-pink-pink. There are definitely only three spots....if I had to guess, it'd be the purple-pink-pink (20.8%) that you have in the middle of your graph. (The current colour is pink-creme-creme, with a slight yellow/pink cast to the creme, and a rose tint to the pink -- but again, it's really faded.) Oh -- and my car is a 2000 GTI 1.8T, stickshift of course!
Peter, I'm really starting to lean the same direction as you are -- I miss my stock suspension! All the Golfs/Jettas/GTIs in the Northeast seemed to be traveling south with me today, and I got to watch their chassis closeup as we traversed all the bumps and construction zones: it was striking how much more supple their suspensions were, and how much more stable their chassis stayed over high-speed road imperfections. (And yes, they had the slow vertical rise & fall, without any pitching...)
I've also been pushing the Shine Front a bit harder, now that I'm used to it, and whereas objectively it hasn't changed, subjectively it's becoming less satisfying with time. It's definitely a much "faster" setup than stock, in that I can cruise effortlessly at speeds that used to make me concentrate -- but it has no "depth". The stock suspension has all that initial roll and early understeer, which tends to make a fellow slow down, but if you push it still harder, it's surprising how well it continues to hold on. Conversely, with the Shine Front, there's a stable, linear feeling (which is why it's so easy to go fast), but push it a bit harder, and it hits its understeer limits very quickly. As such it's sort of the antithesis of the "Slow Car - Fast" philosophy -- it's very comfortable to drive quickly, but in some ways it's not as rewarding, nor is it ultimately as fun in daily driving. (Caveat: I'm still with stock rear springs, and presumably going stiffer on the rear would change things...) In short, the Shine Front does work as a "GT" suspension -- it's fast, safe, predictable, and reasonably comfortable -- but maybe it's time now to move on to what in British circles is called a "Mild Road" setup: something perhaps not as fast as a GT setup, but one that's equally safe, and that has a bit of sparkle and lively response....
Anyway, Peter -- if you can figure out what combination of OEM front & rear springs can (1) stiffen things up a bit while (2) inhibiting pitch so we can use softer shock settings, that would be extremely interesting!
P.S. -- (The SofSport fronts go in next week -- I'll let you know how it goes...)
- C


_Modified by Ceilidh at 5:58 PM 6-24-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (Ceilidh)*

Captain - Thanks for the info...I guess my brain doe snot work anymore as I completely forgot that he stated this data many times in the past..... thanks!
So, now that I know Winston's car is 2000 GTI 1.8T, there are only seven front springs for that year for Golfs. Winston's spring should be in the following table:








Note: I put the Jetta Wolfsburg Edition there as to have some sort of known reference with the springs from 2002 and 2003 for Jettas. Anyway, it looks like the strongest spring on a Golf's Sport Package is considerably softer than the strongest Jetta's Sport Package front spring...... which (if true) would be good news for us, because this way, by getting one of those stronger White and Blue combinations for the V6 Jettas - I can have some sort of Jetta GTI, stiffer than the stock Jetta and yet with lighter than the V6 engine








RichB - From your pictures and looking at the color codes we have so far, looks like the Jetta you are describing does NOT have a Sport Package, but still a spring from the Sport Package selection is used (but slightly softer)as to maybe (as you said) compensate for the big wheel, etc..... I know for sure that the same Jetta as described by you, but with the Sport Package (and 17" and leather, roof, etc) has the same front spring as Wolfsburg Edition Jetta - 1 Violet 1 Pink......


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (roscoe13)*


_Quote, originally posted by *roscoe13* »_ The increased front spring rate gave me very noticably less roll, apparent understeer, and brake dive....

Roscoe,
Your posts are excellent!! Thanks very much for writing up your experiences!
Peter,
I think Roscoe was saying that there's less apparent understeer with his stiffened setup, which is consistent with what we found with the Shine Fronts.
Roscoe & Peter (and whomever's reading along):
It's of course risky to compare verbal impressions without consistent baselines (i.e., we haven't "calibrated" Roscoe yet!), but if we take all of our respective comments at face value, there's something interesting to note:
Peter (Pyce), going from TDI (soft) to Shine Front (very stiff):
much less understeer; better turn-in.
Roscoe, going from TDI (soft) to VR6 fronts (medium + ):
much less understeer; much better turn-in
Winston (Ceilidh), going from GTI (medium - ) to Shine Front (very stiff):
understeer about the same; turn-in duller than before
The above pattern is consistent with Peter's suggestion that the point of diminishing returns comes very quickly with these springs: going from the soft TDI springs to the medium VR6 gains you a lot in neutrality and turn-in, but going from medium (GTI) to very stiff (Shine) gains you very little at all in the way of neutrality, and it even reduces the turn-in a bit. (For reasons I'll explain in a moment, though, the stiff Shines are probably still giving increased roadholding.)
Theory-scoffers can skip this next paragraph







, but Peter's suggestion makes theoretical sense: in terms of roll reduction (which reduces understeer and improves turn-in), the first 10% of front stiffening gives you more than the next 10%, which in turn nets you more than the 10% after that, and so on, and so on. (e.g., once you've stiffened the front so much that it hardly rolls at all, further stiffening does very little good!) Thus the understeer reduction you get from stiffening is biggest at the outset, and drops progressively afterwards. In contrast, the front lateral weight transfer you get from stiffened front springs -- which works to increase the understeer -- is much more linear: even when the car is so stiff that it hardly rolls at all, increasing the front stiffness will still increase the front lateral weight transfer. Hence, when you first start stiffening, the roll-effect is more important than the weight-transfer-effect, and you get reduced understeer. But as you stiffen still further, the benefits come more slowly, and eventually start to disappear....
Oh, as for roadholding: ......oh, I'm too tired! If anybody actually cares, I'll explain the reasoning!








Anyway, the SofSport will give us a 4th data point (the other 3 are TDI, VR6/GTI, Shine), and if we're lucky it'll appear in a way that will allow us to judge where the peak of the curve might lie (i.e., where one would expect maximum neutrality & turn-in). If we're really lucky, the peak (for 4 cylinder cars) will lie somewhere in the range spanned by the OEM front springs -- which will give us a hope of finding a matching rear spring that inhibits pitching, which will allow us to soften the shocks, which will give us a good ride, etc.!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: ..... Back to (pyce)*

Hey Peter,
Just out of curiosity: what is the code on your original TDI springs? Is it the Wolfsburg Edition, or the soft base spring? (If it's the WE, ignore my previous post, as we're both starting from close to the same point....)


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: ..... Back to (Ceilidh)*

Winston - my stock springs are not even on the tables







Guess they are much softer than even the softest Sport, but I will find out soon....
RichB - My bad, I am also very tired, today is really not the day..... sorry, I missed the very BOLD model of your car.... Actually, now that I know it is GTI and it is with the Sport Package, we can look a the tables and see how Volkswagen offsets (with spring rates) the difference in weight between similar equipment Jettas and Golfs! So, we two cars (yours and my friend's) with the exact same configurations (17", sport Package, Leather, Sunroof, etc) and one is Jetta and the other one is Golf. The Golf gets 2 Green / 4 White and the Jetta gets 1 Violet 1 Pink ...... So, from the table now we know that Golf is 18.3% over XXX and the Jetta is 25% over the same XXX! 
I have more things to say to Winston and his latest posts fro today, but really have ot run now..... later.


----------



## willZ (May 26, 2004)

*Re: .....color coding*

To whom it may concern








After poring over the spring decoder table I decided to run over the the local VW store and see if the really nice parts woman would do some looking up of stuff I wasn’t going to buy… sure enough, she came through once again with flying colors… she kindly printed the parts book pages relating to the front springs for a 2002 Jetta wagon. 
There are thirteen front spring part numbers for this model. Listed below are the four that are flagged “for sports type running gear”.
1J0 411 105 CS	4 pink 1 blue
1J0 411 105 CT	2 pink 2 blue
1J0 411 105 CP	2 white 4 green
1J0 411 105 CN	1 white 4 green
Also of interest is the part # for the “standard” VR6 bump cushion. It is listed twice with the second listing flagged as “for sports type running gear”. 
1J 0 412 303 rubber stop for shock absorber
On my way out of the dealership I spent a few minutes looking at the color-coding on new ’04 cars on the lot. There were no VR6 wagons w/ sport suspension.
GTI VR6 2 blue 2 white
Jetta GLS 1.8T w/ factory sport suspension 2 blue 2 white (two of these)
If there is a direct correlation for the color-coding between models and years, the part number for this spring is;
1J0 411 105 CD	2 blue 2 white (THIS IS FROM THE '02 WAGON LISTING!!)
Peter… hope this doesn’t further muddy the waters for you and once again thanks a lot for taking all the time and effort! The beer offer is still good for when you are on your Seattle trip.








Will


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: .....color coding (willZ)*


_Quote, originally posted by *willZ* »_ .....hope this doesn’t further muddy the waters for you .... 

The more the mud - the better! Really, we rather make a mistake and someone discovers it, so we can go back and dig even more till truth comes out...... Keep those color codes coming and eventually we can figure out a thing or two.








edited to add:

_Quote, originally posted by *willZ* »_ ..... Jetta GLS 1.8T w/ factory sport suspension 2 blue 2 white (two of these)... 

Will, was that a sedan or wagon? If it was sedan, then it means that for 2004 VW "upped" the front spring rate for the Sport Package for that specific model..... if it was Wagon, then everything is as it should be.... Thanks for all the info so far!
And Thanks EVERYBODY who is participating on this! Without all of you, we will be getting exactly nowhere! Thanks fellows! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by pyce at 6:06 PM 6-24-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: .....color coding (pyce)*

Will ..... The mud sure got deeper, LOL! I browsed the whole etka and could not find any of the part numbers you listed! ...... The funny part is, I can not find even the stock TDI front spring (2Green 2Pink)....
So, at this point I can't think of anything else but that the European A4 VWs use slightly different springs in "some" applications. reason of thinking this way is the etka I can look at is European and not American. So, some of the codes on our North America cars are not available in Europe and vice-versa.......


----------



## willZ (May 26, 2004)

*Re: .....color coding (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Will, was that a sedan or wagon? If it was sedan, then it means that for 2004 VW "upped" the front spring rate for the Sport Package for that specific model..... if it was Wagon, then everything is as it should be.... Thanks for all the info so far!

More mud







those were both sedans, Peter


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: .....color coding (willZ)*

Ok, here is an "estimate" of what we are dealing with ..... All we know for sure is Winston's Front GTI spring that came in 148 lb/in rate. So, replacing the percentages we got in the first two tables with actual number related to his spring, we get something like this:








Now, if we can only find reliable info for at least one more spring from this graph, and if the info coincides with our guesses here- then I think we can pretty much assume that we have it, at least more or less.....
Will, it does not matter which car the spring was on! All it matters is to find the spring rates and their relation to the color codes. Then only we can discover what is VW doing year by year and then we can try to guess why are they going that way..... Fun, no?


----------



## DLO490 (Mar 12, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (4dBunny)*

To the guy mentioning looking for Neuspeed springs and a Neuspeed RSB - I have both of them that I'm looking to sell. Both brand new in the box, never used - hell, never even opened. Bought them intending to install before my wife put the car in a ditch.
Sway - $185 plus shipping.
Springs - $145 plus shipping.
Both prices firm, I'm already losing enough money, those prices are cheap. Send me an IM or an email if interested, as I prolly won't check this thread again.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: ...and the bar went south.... (DLO490)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DLO490* »_To the guy mentioning looking for Neuspeed springs and a Neuspeed RSB - I have both of them that I'm looking to sell....

Why here? That's what the classified secion is for.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (Ceilidh)*

Wow this is a long thread. Read the first and last pages but I dont have time to digest it all.....
In brief the list - esp Ceilidh's comments - seems to mirror my experience with the SRS setup on my 1985 Golf.
Fortuntaly right now I have TWO cars so I can run back to back comparisons (Im parting the odler car - the shell is tweaked and sagging).
First I have a 1985 Golf 2 Dr with 14" steel rims running Michelin X-one tyres, Bilstien HDs. full bump stops in the rear, no rear sway bar (not even a stock one in the beam), no front sway bar (never had it either) that sits about 3/4" lower on SRS street springs (which I understand are 200lbs F and 120lbs R) and a VR6 strut bearing conversion
To make the comparisons really easy - I ALSO have a 1992 Golf 2 Dr with 13" stock steelies, cheapo tyres in stock size, Bilstien HDs, stock springs, "diesel" stut bearings, front a rear sway bars (the stock ones).
I can ride them back to back on the commute through Philly streets - which are kinda like Boston (I live near the Liberty Bell).
In general, the ride on the 92 with stock springs is smoother than the 85 with SRS springs - no surprise there. 
But the 92 will dive underbraking. 
Also, the 92 will take a "set" that wobbles in the on ramp turns. I attribute that to the sway bar engaging / disengaging as the springs oscillate and the cheapo tires tuck under. 
The 92 doenst "thwack" as hard over the xpansion joints, but it does "surf" a bit on the "whoops' (long shallow bumps in the asphalt - the kind where there is a giant oil stain at the end because it shakes the oil drips off of all the cars). 
The 85 "planes" flat over the whoops and corners like its on rails on the on ramps.
There is a SLIGHT bit of rebound when hitting expansion joints int eh 92 - not unpleasant but noticible compared to the 85 where the car "sounds" like its bashing but the CONTROL is so nice that I plow right though em. This is especially nice on the ramps that have expansion joints - the 92 will squirrle (and thus I slow down) where the 85 will sound a hard thwack but I just keep my right foot in it as its controllable - even if the car "skips" to the outside of the turn.
I love the SRS handling. I just dont like the "falling and bashing" that I get on the potholes in my neighborhood.
I attributed the "crashing and bashing" that Ceilidh experiences in potholes to the fact that the FRONT SRS spring sits short in the strut and that under rebound the spring will "rattle" in the strut.
Also - I dont give a durn about ride height - and would in fact prefer a "Country" ride hight to give me more compression room.
Based on my comments - Eli at SRS sold me a "used" set of 225lb springs that he claims has a taller free height than the 200s that I have. I havent taken the springs out of the car to check yet - thats this weekends project.
Also the plan was to make a spacer of about 3/4" to space UP the rear spring perch on the Bilstine HDs. Eli @ SRS claims they use roll bar tubing to do this - and sent a short section of tube along with the springs. I havent had a chance to take the struts out of the 85 to get the tub measured and cut. (for those who dont know, the Bilstien HDs have a circlip and grooves cut into the shock body - this can be used to raise / lower the ride height by about 1/4" ? in each direction).
Its beginning to sound like the solution lies in spacing the rear SRS spring back up to an OEM ride height... or winning the lottery and getting a PSS9 setup








It may be that the rear is riding on the bump stops even with the minor 3/4" drop that the SRS has.....
BTW - on a related note - are rally teams using "off road" type bypass shocks yet? Im sure it wouldbe hard (but not impossible) to package these in a standard 2.25 spring coil over - esp using monotube - but not impossible if one also uses a remote reservoir to hold the extra oil needed and to control the nitrogen pressures....
[to be continued]


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (Mencius01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Mencius01* »_
Also a friend who has driven my car while it was still in the full SRSS kit (bar off now and returned to Shine since it broke) suggested that the Bilstein HDs were somewhat soft on rebound ... what does that mean and does that contribute to ride discomfort? 


I'll attempt to ansywer this one... tho my experience with Bilstines stems primarly from a 4Runner and off road racing (which seems to be THE proving ground for shock tech before the open wheelers figured out what was going on)...
First, the Brit term for shock is a better word to desribe what the "shock" does - DAMPER.
The springs absorb the shock.
The damper slows down the oscilliton of the spring (aka the *boing*)
There are two basic terms when it comes to the damper - 
compression
rebound
The compression is how much the damper resists the spring being squeezed
The Rebound is how much the damper resists the spring "expanding" after being compressed - or the "boing" factor.
If the damper is soft on compression, then the spring does all the compression resistance.
If the damper is soft on rebound, the spring can "boing" back up faster than if the rebound were "hard".
In my experience, if the damper is soft on rebound, AND the spring rates are higher than "stock", the car tends "pop" back up.
There are a huge number of other factors at play here - what the other end of the vehicle is doing for one - and of course what the person "means" when they use the terms.
Typically dampers designed for stock springs are not otimized for the stiffer springs (such as the SRS setup) and thus some people feel that the springs "pop back up" too fast.
[edited/added] I have NOT found this to be the case with HDs and SRS springs on an A2 Golf. My issue with the SRS and Bisltien HDs is more of te "crash and bash" issue - which it seems is not related to rebound. I DO have an issue with a too soft rebound with Bilstiens on the 4Runner - in that case the front end "pops up" - sometimes enough to top out the suspension agains the snubbers. This has more to do with the spring / damper combo and isnt relevent per se to the VW.
Note that unlike some other dampers (in my experience) the Bisltiens do NOT 'porpoise" - that is continue to "boing" - unlike alot of cars I see on the road....


_Modified by ewongkaizen at 4:18 PM 6-25-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (ewongkaizen)*

My understanding is that you want to use a damper that returns the spring to the road surface, as quickly and as efficiently as possible. This does have a tendency to "feel" under-damped compared to OE ride quality, or adjustable dampers with rebound cranked very high. However, if the bump is a quick compression, rebound sequence - and no more (porpoising) - then the damper has done the job.
Bilstein HDs can reportedly control spring rates up to about 400#. My experience has been that 300# springs can be controlled quite well by the HD damper.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine Front / Stock Rear: Last Post -- Ride Comfort & Shock Settings (f1forkvr6)*

I was just thinking that if we continue digging in here about the stock color codes, this topic will become 50 pages, so I started a new topic, dedicated only on the stock spring rates. This way we can get even more exposure, as I guess not many read here anymore.... plus we will need a lot of people to help on this one. So, let's keep this out of here and leave space to concentrate on our experiments, and let's try to get somewhere with the color codes in the new topic here:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1464067
Hope you all find it better this way.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Synchronization*

Hello Peter,
Just wanted to synchronize watches, so to speak: Is the following fundamentally correct?
1) You will be removing your Shine Front springs and 337 Rear very shortly, and will replace them not with your stock TDI springs, but with front & rear springs from a more sport-oriented Jetta (which will give you something close to my original GTI/Koni setup).
2) You will NOT be trying SofSport 160 rears in conjunction with your current Shine 225 fronts.
3) I will be replacing my Shine Fronts with SofSport fronts + spacer, which should drop my front rate from its current 257 lb/in to a lower 217 lb/in. If possible, you would like me to measure the SofSport on Dick Shine's digital spring tester (this might be difficult, as I'll be there early in the morning and cannot stay there very long (I've a class to teach at noon, and it's an hour's drive...) -- if you put in a personal request to Dick, that might be helpful here).
4) With the SofSport conversion, you would like me to report on general handling (in particular any changes in understeer and turn-in), as well as on whether the ride quality substantially improves.
If the above is correct, I thought maybe I'd make a request of my own:
A) One "hole" we have in our current understanding is how much worse-riding are rear springs compared with a comparable rear bar. In the history of this thread, you reported a great improvement in ride quality after you removed your stiff rear anti-roll bar; conversely however, we get reports from other testers who feel very little ride degradation from a rear bar, and we have your own findings that any increase in rear spring stiffness is extremely noticeable.
B) Along these lines, we have Ian (Daemon42)'s findings that a Shine Front / Shine Rear Bar setup is extremely sweet-handling and reasonably-riding -- on the A3 platform -- which does not perfectly dovetail with your own impressions of ride harshness when an A4 is similarly equipped. (n.b., were the Shine 150's better or worse (in comfort and handling) than stock rear w/ rear bar?)
C) We also have Dick Shine's judgement (verbally expressed during my visit) that rear springs will give us more, handling-wise, than will the rear bar (if we had to use just one or the other).
D) In short, before we leave the Shine Front setup, it might be really nice to nail down the differences between these two setups:
i. Shine Front, stock rear springs, and Shine Rear Bar; vs.
ii. Shine Front, Shine Rear springs, stock bar.
E) Peter, I think you're probably the only one in the position to answer this question: you've driven the full Shine, you've driven a Shine Front/Rear Bar setup (I think even with Konis, correct?), and you now have only the stock rear bar in place. Hence, before you remove the Shine Fronts, would it be possible for you to swap the 180 lb springs onto the rear of your car?
F) Were you to do so, we could really wrap up this section of the experiment: the "high-performance" end of the Guide could then tell people how to "stage" things as they approach the full-Shine setup, with the Shine Front /Stock Rear/ Koni on one end of the spectrum; the Full Shine / Bilstein at the other end, and some real recommendations and comments on what might work in the middle.
Anyway, if you haven't the time (or if the 180 springs are not accessible), we'll all understand -- you've been doing an amazing amount of work for everyone already!!! But if this last experiment is possible, it would really wrap up this part of the study.









Regardless, wish me luck with the SofSports, and I'll keep you posted. Cheers!
- W


----------



## Mencius01 (Aug 27, 2001)

*Re: Synchronization (Ceilidh)*

I currently have a Shine Front + Shine Rear + stock rear bar setup on a 2001 Jetta VR6 right now b/c I sent my broken bar back to Shine (finally!) if Peter wants to try it out. The downside is I'll be away for 3 weeks starting next week ... 

I am on Bilstein HD shocks all around, however.


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Synchronization (Mencius01)*

Winston, as you know I have been following this for some time. I really do think that the Neuspeed Sofsport F&R partnered with the Koni's will be the optimal setup for you. I am hopeful that you will try it.
My experience has been overwhelmingly positive with my Tokico HP/SofSport combo. The HP's are a little firm and degrade comfort somewhat-- largely on "sharp" imperfections on expressways where there is a small "bang" that is well-damped. High-speed cruising and stability is much improved over stock as there is much less initial roll and diagonal pitch. My experience with the stock suspension was that it was initially too soft and slow, but that it would "catch up" when pushed-- especially in a high-speed sweeper.
I am considering installing both F & R Neuspeed bars as my experience with a huge (28.6mm) R ASB on my Focus SVT has not led to much of a decrease in comfort. Instead the rear just feels more planted and slightly "firmer" without a loss in comfort. It's kind of hard to explain. I am considering the F Neuspeed bar to make up for the degradation in handling that I am experiencing from the small loss in ride height. However, the loss in ride height causes an increased tendency to roll which, I think, would effectively weaken the rate of my F springs for cornering purposes but not affect the rate for the purpose of soaking up surface irregularities?
If you are planning to be in the Cincinnati/Louisville area, I would relish the opportunity for you to drive my GTI for a comparison.
Peter, I think my GTI OEM springs were 1 pink 4 blue?
PMB


----------



## JediKGB (May 21, 2002)

*Re: Synchronization (4dBunny)*

Wow...after 2 weeks of reading I finally get done with that whole post, and come out if it with a greater knowledge of suspensions that I ever thought possible. GREAT WORK guys, also I posted my spring colors on the other topic, will verify them later this week when I get my car on a lift, checked this past time with a flashlight and just squating on the ground. 
Also Ceilidh, you said that you had experience with the A2 chassis suspension setup, I was wondering if you had the chance I could pick your brain about a couple of things on my A2 golf. 
thanks and keep up the good work....also if anybody needs access to a lift in the mid-hudson area of NY (12533) , PM and I can help ya out


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Synchronization (4dBunny)*

Hello PMB!
Nice to hear from you! I'm glad the SofSports are working out -- I'll try just the fronts pretty soon, and will let you know how that works. Please keep us posted on your experience with the antiroll bars!
.
Jedi,
I'm afraid my A2 mod experience is fairly limited (tires, shocks, rear bar), but ask away -- I'll do my best to answer. Cheers!
- C


----------



## JediKGB (May 21, 2002)

*Re: Synchronization (Ceilidh)*

Ceilidh,
Well basically I am just wondering about how you ran your car (like shock/spring settings, tire etc etc) , and what was it setup for ? Street / Track etc. etc. I'm looking to get into the autocrossing thing and I just trying to get input about different peoples setup so I can compare it to mine. Thanx. (Instead of clogging up thread with my questions you can email me @ [email protected] )









edit: included email


_Modified by JediKGB at 12:38 PM 6-27-2004_


----------



## captainoblivious (Aug 24, 2002)

*Finally done*

Well I'm finally done, went from Shine springs/HD's to stockers/Koni's.
My review, not going to into major technical details.
Step 1, swap HD's for Koni's only in the rear. Set koni's to 1 turn out of 2 1/3 turns. Since the Koni's are not pressurized it dropped the rear 1/2". Way to low for my liking, plus I didn't have the bump stops trimmed enough so they bounced off of them a few times. Very interesting to note that you can actually feel the difference between how the Koni's and the HD's take bumps. The HD's in the front bounce right back after a bump where as the Koni's settled slightly more.
Handling: didn't push enough to notice a difference.
Comfort: a little nicer, but the bumpstop thing was evident.
Step 2, swap in stock rear springs (2 silver / 2 brown? gold? orange? 
violet? pink?). This raised the rear up almost 2 inches, getting dangerously close to 4x4 territory making me want to cut a coil.
Comfort: ride quality improved very much.
Handling: hello body roll, very very evident now.
Step 2, putting on the front Koni's with stock springs from a VR6 (1 pink/1 violet). Ride height remained very similar to before (don't have numbers in front of me), but I did not include the spacer. Set the Koni's at 1 of 1 3/4 turns.
Comfort: improved some more.
Handling: Where did it go? Body roll: yes. Understeer: yes. Steering: not as responsive or quick. Overall perfectly fine for a daily driver. 
I don't reach any limits on the streets and this car will most likely never see track time, so I'm happy with it.
Now all I have to do is keep myself from trading it in a used SVT Contour I found at a nearby dealership.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Tuning With Buffers .....*

I have been doing some experiments for the last three weeks, but wanted to get really good data first and make sure it all really works, and then post about it. So, here is little bit about the first and most important (at least to me) experiment:
*Tuning With Rear Buffers (Bump Stops)*
As we all know by now, many here cut their Rear Buffers as to gain some comfort after going to aftermarket lowering spring. Reason being – the Buffers are too long and this way the car “sits” on top of the damper and the combined spring rate becomes very high…… Some spring vendors do recommend that the stock rear buffers are cut some, but some do not. So, three weeks ago, after having a conversation with Winston about how the different Golfs he tested, behaved differently in curve ….. I started thinking about what if we actually try to approach this the other way around – instead of getting stiffer spring and cut the buffers, why don’t we try to get a soft spring and then add something to the buffers, so we can explore more about that “progressiveness” the buffers have and see whether we can actually achieve some sort of (combined) real progressive spring that would give us the much desired comfort on highway cruising and give us some nice “support” in spirited mountain driving when the car starts leaning left and right……. I guess this is nothing new, maybe auto-crossers (in stock classes) have been cheating like this for ages







But it was interesting to see how it feels in our specific application and what really could have been achieved for the daily driver.
So, for the experiment put back together all the slices of the old buffers, plus this time got a lot of pretty wide but thin plastic washers. Made a cut on every washer so it can be “snapped” on the damper’s shaft without taking out the damper. The cut was about 1 millimeter smaller, so the washer needs to be forced to go in and this way would not simply slide out while not in compression under normal driving. Also, made a vertical cut on all pieces that compose the buffer, so they can also be “snapped” on the shaft in 1 second. The whole point here is to make it so the changes are quick and can be done everywhere. For this experiment the stock rear spring went into the car as well, so we have the maximum comfort we need and also the rear is lifted enough, so the damper’s shaft is easy to access without the need of a floor jack, etc. Basically, you can stop the car on the side of the road, go behind, put your hands above the tire and “snap – snap” put all the parts (buffers and washers) and be done with it. Same goes for the removal later…. Basically it is faster to do it than to read the last few sentences about how to do it ….
Now, from previous experience with few rear spring, one of the most important lesson learnt was that the more the rear’s rate (spring rate that is) - the better the front in the curve! No secrets here, everybody knows about it. It was just interesting to realize how much of a change that actually give. It is a lot, even if you go only few tents of pounds! The only problem is that comfort goes bad as much as the under-steer is reduced. And basically here is where the hope that the buffers would actually help to have that wonderful pretty high spring rate while curving (when the car “sits” on the outer tires) and the spring rate goes up as the buffers get compressed pretty well on the damper…. And at the same time we would get decent comfort going on straight line when the vertical motion is not that much. In theory works, but the issue was to get it in real life…
Well, I have very, very good news for those of you who never thought of exploring this way! Not only works great, but it also provides us with an amazing way of exploring our car much better, fast and most of all – extremely cheap! All you need is actually several thin plastic (or whatever, hard enough material) washers and the patience to stop from time to time on a curvy road and snap them in or out and explore. It is an eye opener, because as you get building the washers on top of each other (between the damper and the buffer) the car’s behavior changes pretty dramatically for such a fast snap-on snap-off mod. I mean, we all know what it is when you install new springs or dampers, anti-roll bars – as you are installing it, you are building expectations. Then you go to test and if the change is small – you get confused. If it is big – then the difference is quiet obvious, but then you wish you cold do it again back to back as to evaluate even better, but you can’t because it takes so much time, money, etc……… This one, thought, is perfect because not only you can do it in few seconds, but you can also do the left side at certain height and the right side at another height. Then, you can actually feel in a slalom how different the car behaves in left and right curves! So, you can get the difference real life, right there, do not need to remember anything from the day before, etc. 
The real funny part is that it actually works so great, I wonder why tuners do not use this way to make the cars? The beauty, again, is that after (for example) the spirited drive with friends is done for the day, you simply stop, snap-off the washers and back to original buffers, where you lose a lot of the great turn in and much less under-steer, but hey – you are going home at cruise speed on the straight (but crappy) highway, so who cares if your car is “detuned” little bit……. The for whoever really wants to go lower (in the rear) it is always possible to slice some of those buffers as to get a “constant” distance between bottom of buffer and top of the damper, and then tune again with the washers, or even use the sliced part of the buffer. The sky’s the limit for those combinations, it really depends where is your own sweet spot…..
Anyway, back to the testing….. Drove the car like this for about two weeks. The best mod ever! Keep the washers in the door and snap-on, snap-off…. The more washers I put – the better the turn-in, the less the total under-steer of the car, the more the rear gets alive! Pure fun! The feeling is exactly like adding some sort of anti-roll bar. Immediate difference at the front and immediate rear outer tire gets little hotter. The good part (in the way I see it) of the washers versus the real anti-roll bar is that the inner rear tire is pretty well on the road even when the rear outer tire is very loaded. So, the rear is quiet stable and predictable….. There is also sweet-spot where some great reduction in under-steer is gained and yet the car is almost like “stock” comfort wise on the concrete. The funny part is, my car always curves better to the right, feels much more stable, leans less, etc. and at the same time the left curves are always like if I had 5-8 PSI less in the right tires. Do not ask me why, I have no idea. Maybe the springs are not equal, so not know…. The point is, this “problem” was cured with one more washer on the right rear than the left rear, LOL! And surprisingly enough, this small “trick” put somehow both side in some sort of “off-phase” (I do not know who to really explain it to myself) or whatever really happened, but the whole rear is more comfortable on the concrete joints! Then I tried again with same amount of washers left and right and it got worse again….. Then again one more washer, but this time on the other side, just for fun – and again, got more comfy…. Go figure. The fact is, I now drive with one more washer on the right rear and the comfort is great and the thing handles very well. Doh, been trying to find the right rear spring that will fit my soft-azz requirement, yet would not let me fly off the cliff in terrible under-steer – and the answer had been in the buffers and washers. The only negative part I felt so far is that when the number of washers increases and the buffer gets pre-loaded (meaning: lift the rear slightly, snap-on to fill up the whole space, then lower and the buffers get compressed even when the car is still static) the spring rate increases quiet a lot immediately, even with driving in straight line you feel it a lot…. So, in curve is incredibly fantastic, but you have to watch our for bumps because when it hits one – it is harsh and it may even upset the rear. Basically, there is not movement left there. But of course, I would not drive it this way on the roads. It is too much anyway, really amazing turn-in thought – could be perfect for some sort of track use, where the surface is knows to be very smooth, etc.
I did even some modeling and will post some pictures tomorrow, if anyone has trouble understanding what we are talking about. We can probably try to outsource some existing washers on the market, from whatever application they are, but that fit out shafts, so people can go get a set of washers and start playing. Would be really nice if anyone of you want to try these things. It is simply amazing how the car gets transformed in seconds! Yes, we can play with rebound, but it is not really the same thing. The dampers to me are some sort of “software” that is necessary as to get the best from the “hardware” (springs, bars, etc)…… No matter how you tweak the software, if the hardware is wrong – you can’t do miracles. But with these washers, we are modifying the “hardware” and then fine tune with the dampers is not so difficult. Even better, I no longer need very high rear rebound as to achieve good turn in. Just add few washers and this thing turns like dream….
Winston, you specifically have to try this, because it may give you the ticket to resolve that pitching! It works somehow on the concrete and who knows, it may do some magic on your roads…. We have to talk more in depth about the comfort with the washers, as there are really spots where the rate is slightly higher than with no washers, but it somehow, on specific surfaces, makes the front work “better”….. I do not know how to describe it, but with certain amount of washers I still have good ride quality (slightly reduced, but very bearable) and at the same time can lower the front rebound some, while the car still feels stable ( I mean, you know how we can’t drive with less than 75% rebound and the reason behind)….. The washers make some tricks in “synchronizing” thought. At least this is a good beginning, we can only explore more in the future….
More tomorrow….. Sorry everyone else who posted for the last few days and I never responded. I will try to catch up this week







……


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*REF: Yet another config: A2, HDs, Stock/SRS*

[Here for reference... I'll update later]
1992 A2 Golf GL 2Door 1.8L Manual
Bilstien HD struts
Rear circlip in the middle (std) position
Front stock springs
Rear SRS springs (120lbs?) - [used for oh 50K]
rear drop is 3/4"
Handling is better than stock. 
Turn is is good, but NOT as good as with front SRS springs and VR6 bearings.
Ride quality is improved. CD doesnt skip as much (yeah the better fix is a newer CD player with a buffer)
I still dont want the drop though.
Not as much "crash and bash" in the potholes.
Strangely, it has less (but not as less as SRS in front) brake dive.
OK for now but its not staying that way.. 
Working on a way top get a spacer in the front to run SRS springs but at STOCK ride height (aka a 3/4" lift in front).
Planning to machine rear spacers to lift the rear 3/4" to stock heignt.

[update 6/28/04]
butt sagg looks terrible. But handles OK.
Front end washes out (understeer) not a surpirse with stock springs and stock sway bar.) Slightly better "turn in" as the rear can come around (stiffer rear). NOT as good as SRS front and rear. But more COMFORT than SRS front and rear.
Giving some SERIOUS consideration to coil overs int he front using two springs.
Will need to measure.
hub to fender at full droop with strut installed
hub to fender at ride height (14.25" OEM and Bilstien)
about 3/" drop with SRS spring
From this I can get the car weight compression on 200lb springs(SRS) and then figure out the tender combo.
NOTE the tender has to have a HIGHER rate than the main spring... (run the math - the weight affects BOTH springs at the same time until tender full bind)
The goal is to get
stock ride height
SRS rates at aroudn 1/2" to 3/4" drop height.
The theory is that I get SRS handling w/ street comfort...
[update 7/1/04]
Looked into coil overs - the idea is to attempt to see if we can replicate PSS fronts uisng coil over adapters. Working on getting the spring specs that are used by either the PSS or the H&R version(s)
(from EC artilce on Dune Buggy Suspension - photos)
Main spring on the H&R Dune Buggy appears to be 250-70
Thats 
250mm (about 10") free lenght 
70 N/mm which is about 400 pounds/inch
Rear Spring is marked 300-50
300mm - 11.81"
50N/mm - 285.27 lbs/inch
Rear tender appeared to read 80-60-20
80mm - 3.14"
60N/mm ~ 350 lbs/in
20mm - 0.78"
implies about 2.5" before full bind.
1 newton = 0.2248 pounds
1 mm = 0.0394 inches
Im beginning to think that the problem in using a 400lb front spring is that we can decrease the amount of low speed compression... that the HDs have a TON of low speed compression to compensate for stock "soft" spring rates.....

--- 
The rates presumed above yeilds an effective rate on the REAR of about 160lbs until full bind at 2.5" which occurs at 400lbs (per)
After full bind the rate is that of the main spring - 285 lbs/in
The effective "bounce up" rate above the full bind is the 160.
Reports are that the ride height has FULL BIND on the tenders...

_Modified by ewongkaizen at 7:48 PM 7-1-2004_


_Modified by ewongkaizen at 8:07 PM 7-1-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Synchronization (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_1) You will be removing your Shine Front springs and 337 Rear very shortly, and will replace them not with your stock TDI springs, but with front & rear springs from a more sport-oriented Jetta (which will give you something close to my original GTI/Koni setup).

Yes, when I find some of those 170 lb and up stock springs. It is not as easy as I thought, especially now that some people know they got pretty strong spring, they do not want to give it up easily







I will keep the same rears as they are one of the strongest and do come on Sport Packages on some Jettas, so no biggie there....

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_2) You will NOT be trying SofSport 160 rears in conjunction with your current Shine 225 fronts.

At this point I am not so interested, because I know what 170 lb rear spring gives and there will be little surprise if I go with the 160 lb rear. As you read in my previous post, I can get that rate with the washers and buffers, so why bother. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_3) ..... if you put in a personal request to Dick, that might be helpful here).

I will try to call him later today. It is very hard to find him on the phone, but will try my luck.... Exactly when are you going there?

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_4) With the SofSport conversion, you would like me to report on general handling (in particular any changes in understeer and turn-in), as well as on whether the ride quality substantially improves.

Yes, we all will appreciate your full detailed report on what and how changed after the swap. I do expect to hear from you about less understeer (if everything else is being the same) and less boring-fast front. I hope this spring will be able to run nicely with about 45-50% rebound, which is something we never managed to have with great success on the Shine front. If you can get it run great on 50% front, then I think we have a bingo and it will be just nice to play from there and go down for comfort and up for feeling. This may end up being actually "the right" rate for a mild GT setup. With few washers under the rear buffers - and we can most probably end this topic...... Really, I am extremely happy with my rear now, just need to see what 40 lb less rate on the front would do and if does not "harm" that much the wonderful Shine front experience - then that would be the ticket!

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_A) One "hole" we have in our current understanding is how much worse-riding are rear springs compared with a comparable rear bar. In the history of this thread, you reported a great improvement in ride quality after you removed your stiff rear anti-roll bar; conversely however, we get reports from other testers who feel very little ride degradation from a rear bar, and we have your own findings that any increase in rear spring stiffness is extremely noticeable.

Others report little degradation because mainly of two things:
1. They either have a Neuspeed, Autotech, etc bars, which (let's face it, no offence) are softer and do not act as "quickly" as the Shine bar, which has almost "Zero" lag and it transform the rear into much less independent axel.....
2. Or they drive on much better roads and that is not an issue on those. As to notice the degradation, the car has to be driven on surfaces where the left and right wheels do not go over bumps and do not fall into holes at the same time. And needless to say that soft rear spring (with the bar)would make that degradation less...
Sorry, Winston, I am not planning on installing another bar. I know many can try to convince me that I am wrong and that it is great for them, etc..... on my roads here, with the miles I put per day, a stiff rear bar is a big "no". A softer one could be fine, but if it is softer than why bother, we can get that with washers...

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_B) Along these lines, we have Ian (Daemon42)'s findings that a Shine Front / Shine Rear Bar setup is extremely sweet-handling and reasonably-riding -- on the A3 platform -- which does not perfectly dovetail with your own impressions of ride harshness when an A4 is similarly equipped. (n.b., were the Shine 150's better or worse (in comfort and handling) than stock rear w/ rear bar?)

Ian drives (most of the time) for fun. He told me once he does not commute. I do commute about 100 miles per day. The worse scenario he described once was his long trips to here and there and I remember mentioning the I-50 through Nevada that he did not like at very high speeds and IIRC that was the main factor to go back to stock rear springs with the bar....... I have done the whole I-50, from beginning to end and nothing on that highway is even close to the daily experience I have here on the concrete. So, again, it is "where" the car is really driven and how often, etc. It is really personal preference and therefore I think no one would ever be able to evaluate comfort gain/lost from different setups trough the internet. If I ever move out of the Bay Area, I will go back to Full Shine in a heart beat....

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_C) We also have Dick Shine's judgment (verbally expressed during my visit) that rear springs will give us more, handling-wise, than will the rear bar (if we had to use just one or the other).

I remember we had this conversation about 15-20 pages ago when I first removed the bar and noticed some interesting (in better) behavior of the car, and I said I like it much better with stiffer spring and no bar instead of softer springs and bar, but many disagreed then.... I guess, again, it is personal preferences of how ones feels better in a curve. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_D) In short, before we leave the Shine Front setup, it might be really nice to nail down the differences between these two setups:
i. Shine Front, stock rear springs, and Shine Rear Bar; vs.
ii. Shine Front, Shine Rear springs, stock bar.

As said above..... I like the ii , but I know that I will be alone on this, so whoever reads here, try both and then see, instead of listening to us...

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_E) Peter, I think you're probably the only one in the position to answer this question: you've driven the full Shine, you've driven a Shine Front/Rear Bar setup (I think even with Konis, correct?), and you now have only the stock rear bar in place. Hence, before you remove the Shine Fronts, would it be possible for you to swap the 180 lb springs onto the rear of your car?

All my Shine rears are with Scott, so he could test them with the Camber Kit, but I guess he is really busy in real life, as have not heard from him for quiet some time now. I can borrow some rears locally and do the swap, but I know what it is with the 150 and with the 200, so it really is not going to be any different "magic" with the 180. It is very simple on the rear - the more the rate, the better the turn-in, the less understeer through the whole curve, the worse the comfort..... But I will try to get a set and put them in there for some time.

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Regardless, wish me luck with the SofSports.....

I wish you luck!


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers ..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I have been doing some experiments for the last three weeks, but wanted to get really good data first and make sure it all really works, and then post about it. So, here is little bit about the first and most important (at least to me) experiment:
*Tuning With Rear Buffers (Bump Stops)*


Wow Peter, that is a very novel idea using washers in combination with the bump stops!
I guess it gives a similar advantage as some of those 2" lowering springs which tend to ride on the bumpstops all the time thus giving great turn-in. Yet it doesn't have all the issues associated with low ride height such as roll-centre, camber curve, comfort, and oil-pan scraping. It is adjustable kind of like coilovers, but doesn't have the associated cost.
My only issue would be the reliability of the washers, if they can take the extreme forces involved. What kind of washers did you use and what was their intended application?
Eagerly awaitng pics and your fantastic renderings!



_Modified by phatvw at 2:54 PM 6-28-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Synchronization (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
I remember we had this conversation about 15-20 pages ago when I first removed the bar and noticed some interesting (in better) behavior of the car, and I said I like it much better with stiffer spring and no bar instead of softer springs and bar, but many disagreed then.... I guess, again, it is personal preferences of how ones feels better in a curve. 
As said above..... I like the ii , but I know that I will be alone on this, so whoever reads here, try both and then see, instead of listening to us...


Hi Peter!
Thanks for the great new work! Sorry for the short post, but just a quick comment/ question for now:
On the Shine F&R springs vs. Shine Front / Rear Bar comparison, I must have missed the post a while back where you discussed the differences. If you've already done this comparison, then there's no need to repeat it(!) -- we'll be set on the Guide. But to save me from having to actually find the old posts, could you please (for the record) restate your impressions here? Specifically:
1) Which one rides better -- Shine Springs front & back without Bar, or Shine Front / Stock rear with Bar?
2) Which one handles better?
Thanks very much, Peter -- I realize the above is referring to "old news" amidst all the interesting work on the washers, but it'd be great to settle this point. Thanks again!
As for the washer experiment: really cool! Do you notice any ride / handling changes over time? I wonder if the bumpstops change their characteristics when they heat up from repeated impacts? Anyway, looking forward to hearing more!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Tuning With Buffers....*

Here we have couple of renderings that should describe pretty well the above story Re: Tuning With Buffers....









#1 is the "washer" I was talking about. Simple plastic will do. Note how the slot is slightly smaller than the hole, so it does not goes easy into the shaft (but not difficult either). This way it does not come out easy when not under load. Would be nice if the plastic is on the softer side, so it snaps on and off easier...
#2 is the Stock Buffer (Bumpstop), this is version "B" that is the longer one in the stock Jettas, Golfs, etc..... 337/20Anni owners do have a shorter one, version "C", but the principle is the same...
#3a, 3b and 3c are the three separate parts once the buffer is cut. I am not saying that it has to be cut exactly there. It is entirely up to the user, but I do believe that the #3c is important to remain in the assembly as it is the softest part of the buffer and would benefit the comfort. For hard core applications, of course, it can be removed as we will see below...










A. - Stock Form. This is where more or less the buffer is when we get the car in stock form....
B. - Stock Spirited Form. This is where I personally get great turn in and less understeer, while having still decent comfort on freeways...
C. - Stock Preloaded (Sport) Form. Fantastic turn in. Easy induced oversteer. Comfort is bad. Can's stand it on the daily use...
D. - Lowered Form. This is how the buffer could be cut when lowering rear springs are used, this way to maintain the same distance between buffer - top of the damper as it was prior to lowering. Note how the buffer parts #3a and #3c are only there. Portion #3b is removed...
E. - Lowered Spirited Form - Same as "B"....
F. - Lowered Preloaded (Sport) Form - Same as "C"....
G. - Lowered Preloaded (Race) Form - Even more washers are added and the buffer portion #3c is also removed. Remains only buffer portion #3a, which is the hardest, but still allows some compression. Guess this would be nightmare on any street, but could suit racers on super smooth tracks...


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_... but I do believe that the #3c is important to remain in the assembly as it is the softest part of the buffer and would benefit the comfort....

I agree... when replacing the suspension on my Passat, I cut out a section of the rear stock bumpstop toward the top and expoxied the two sections back together so that the bumpstop would seat properly in the upper rear shock bearing and the dust boot would remain intact on the bottom of the bumpstop and retain the softest part of the bumpstop. It has only been a few months, but it is holding up fine so far. Comfort level is still good as the new (slightly lower than stock) 1BE are not riding on the bumpstop.







This surgery shortned the stock bumpstop around 1/2" to 5/8". As well, the stock look of the bumpstop is retained once installed on the car.
My expoxied together shortened rear bumpstop.









_Modified by RichB at 10:36 AM 6-30-2004_


_Modified by RichB at 10:37 AM 6-30-2004_


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (pyce)*

These are impressive renderings. I just read over the old posts about cutting bumpstops and this looks to be the solution to my bouncing ride with Neuspeed Sports. Although since I didn't cut the bumpstops yet this may explain my increased turn-in. I like the option of the washers to go in for a run in the mountains.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Synchronization (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_3) ..... if you put in a personal request to Dick, that might be helpful here).....

Managed to speak to him today. He knows you are going and he promised to test the Neuspeed SofSport Front spring on his new tester. Also, while your car is in the air, he accepted to take out one of your rear stock springs and test it too, so we know little bit more about your rears as well. Looking forward to hear from you!








Edited to add – A local friend here will give me his Shine 200 rear springs tonight, so I will put them in there. Never had those in the car without the rear bar, so will add something to the mix here. I kind of know what to expect, but will do it for the records and to see if we can complete that “hole” in your book…











_Modified by pyce at 2:22 PM 6-30-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Synchronization (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_... A local friend here will give me his Shine 200 rear springs tonight, so I will put them in there. Never had those in the car without the rear bar, so will add something to the mix here. I kind of know what to expect, ...
With the Koni's, you may be surprised ....


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Synchronization (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_

Edited to add – A local friend here will give me his Shine 200 rear springs tonight, so I will put them in there. Never had those in the car without the rear bar, so will add something to the mix here. I kind of know what to expect, but will do it for the records and to see if we can complete that “hole” in your book…








_Modified by pyce at 2:22 PM 6-30-2004_


Well, I for one, will be on pins and needles waiting to see/rear/hear about your impressions of the Shine 225 fronts/200 rears and Koni's on your Jetta.








The Shines that I got from a fellow 'Texer arrived the other day and they are 225/200 (F/R). Won't be able to get at putting them in this weekend due to other commitments.







Do keep us appraised of your findings for this setup.
Dean


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Shine 225 / 200 ....*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_With the Koni's, you may be surprised ....

And sure I am. Put them last night and of course drove little bit. Then this morning took the way longer way to work, through the mountains (but still 1/3 of it is concrete)....... Actually when I said "I kind of know what to expect", it was not meant only for the comfort, but in general. However, for the handling department there was no big surprise. More like meeting an old friend after few years. The understeer is reduced a lot. Turn in and mid curve is simply great, but it was great with the Shine 180 Rear too. The 200, however, seem to compensate a lot for the missing bar...... For those coming late in the topic - We had 180 rear with Shine Bar before. Now there is no Shine bar, just the stock bar..... the car seems to lean little bit more with he 200/no bar (compare to 180/with bar) but at the same time it seems to be less jarring, less nervous when the curve is not smooth (on so-so roads in the mountains). If to be "flat" is a goal, the 180/with bar is definitely the way to go. It is not my priority thought. I kind of like it to lean nowadays, it gives me more confidence. Anyway, got so used to more body roll (with all the different softer rears we tried) that with just the 200 rears the car seems already much flatter than anything before..... 
For those who are on the way to upgrade to Shine Kit, I would have a small suggestion: If it is possible, do the springs (front and rear) first and see how you like it. Try to install the rear bar later on, when you get fully used to what the new car is like, because it is really different! Specially if you are starting from bone stock car - going directly to full Shine Kit is pretty dramatic change in the way the car behaves. Sure, you can drive it slower and then be on the safe side, but you do not get this Kit to go slow, because you can go pretty fast with your stock car already...... So, before you blast through the curves at crazy speeds, feeling so confident because now you have better suspension - please do learn slowly how the car behaves, because you do have to change little bit your driving style as to be safe. There is less steering input for keeping the same line in curve. There is "interesting" behavior of the rear when you lift in mid corner. The rear may not slip, but the "movement" itself may surprise you and if you are not expecting it, you may panic and do something unnecessary. The "flatness" of the car may fool you that on curves where your previous speed was 30, now you can go at 60, but it is not like that. The gained speed over your previous setup is not a lot! It is just that before, with the "softer" setup, you did not dare that much and you were not as close ot the limit as you are now....... It is great, really great package! I mean, hands down, it is well tuned car.... so well, that it becomes too much for street use. I am serious, it is too capable for the streets. and if you slow down - it is boring, because it does everything with ease. Ones must downgrade the tires as to have some fun on slower speeds, but then again - what is the point of doing suspension then....
As for comfort, have to admit Chris was right. I was surprised in the good sense. The car is more comfortable than what I was expecting. Do not get me wrong - it is not Cadillac, it is not more comfortable than the mismatched setups I had before, no. But it is definitely more comfortable that the 180/ with bar I had before! We already knew that the bar was taking out some comfort, but did not know it was this much. I do not know whether I will keep it this way. Have to drive it for at least few days and do some weekend trips and see how much I can stand it long term. It is not so great on the concrete, but at least it helps evaluate some of the htings we have been talking about here, like pitching. With the 200 rears, the rear (on the concrete) moves less up and down, but at higher frequency (more often vertical vibrations), so this kind of goes pretty well with he front's frequency (and vertical movement) so in general there is not much vertical travel, but it is much faster travel, so it somehow makes it not-so-incredibly-uncomfortable..... It starts reminding me of GTItraveler's H&R DB coilovers. In fact, it starts making sense, because we both (Winston and I) independently felt that the Front Shine 225 is so strong, that higher rebound should be applied at all time. This doe snot make it more comfy, but makes the frequency higher (and vertical travel less) so it is the "less" of the damage..... So, now I am sort of experiencing this to the rear..... and basically start understanding how high rate springs can be less uncomfortable than what I thought. I mean, if 100 lb spring feels certain way (comfort wise), a 200 spring is not going to be twice as worse! It will be just different "worse" that eventually may not feel as bad as expected from a twice-the-spring...... Hope it makes some sense. I need more days to try few rebound settings, so we learn more.... but for the first 100 miles, yeah, I would admit, it is not as uncomfortable as I expected.







.... but must also say that for this experiment I removed all the washers and the buffers are half gone








Basically - the more rear spring rate - the better the front..... but guess - to a certain point! (if we talk street use). Ones just have to find which is the highest rate his butt can stand on his roads, and then the front rates are easy. Have to go now..... you all enjoy your rides and be safe!


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Shine 225 / 200 .... (pyce)*

Pyce, now that you have 225front 200rear how did you end up setting up your shocks for them ?
Also, when did you talk to Dick as I have been trying to get through for the last couple days to him ?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Shine 225 / 200 .... (pyce)*

Sounds like the comfort level of this setup is okay for you, no?
I have no experience with Koni Adjustable shocks, other than in a friends 325i, but have had experience with other twin-tube shocks (mainly Boge & Sachs), and the difference in ride compared to the Mono-tube design is quite large. IMHO the design differences between these two types of dampers is largely responsible for the difference in perceived ride quality. As you've discovered, increased spring rate - even in the rear - does not always result in a big decrease in comfort.
After a few miles, let us know if you still like this setup - could be a nice compromise between the full Shine suspension, and the versions of the Shine "lite" alternatives you've been exploring.


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Shine 225 / 200 .... (TurboGTI2003)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TurboGTI2003* »_Pyce, now that you have 225front 200rear how did you end up setting up your shocks for them ?

I'll second this question, meaning I'd be interested in how the Koni settings (front and rear) end up under the 225/200 configuration.. I do realize though that it has only been less than a day since you installed the 200s and that more testing will be done in the days to follow.
Dean


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Shine 225 / 200 .... (TurboGTI2003)*

Turbo - Started with 75% Front, but went down to 50%, because it still feels great..... but most probably it is because the rear is on 25% stiff. (about 1/2 turn). Will try more variations in the long weekend...... Spoke to Dick yesterday. Do not give up, it is absolutely not easy to get him. I just got lucky he was around the phone when I called....
Chris - It is true, the Mono-Tube Bilsteins are very different, even on this car. Specifically the rear shocks do give (take) a lot. It is not just the quicker acting, but also the added "spring rate" that the high pressure gas puts...... Yes, the comfort is "ok", but also must say that the worse part will come slightly later..... you know, those times when you are so tired in the evening after hard working day and all you dream of is a nice comfy chair to relax - then I suffer the concrete the most. So, more days of commute ar necessary to draw conclusions. But one thing I can repeat (and that is the first line when the topic started): If you have great roads - just get this setup and enjoy it, because on those roads it is simply great!


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_









With options D, E, or F should the lower portion of the bumpstop be attached somehow to the upper portion, I guess that is to say should 3a be attached to 3c from the other figure?

I've set my car up this way and left the dust sheild on the lower portion. However, I have not attached the two parts of the bumpstop and the lower portion sits down on the shock. Is there any problem with this?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (virtual_dub)*

Virtual - Do not worry. Do not need ot glue them or anything like that.... However, if you have cut them vertical TOO, as ot be able to put them in and out by simply "snapping" them (the buffers) then they will "open" on the vertical cut and will come out and you will lose them after a hard corner....
Dean - Yes, I will drive this setup for several hundred miles, maybe even more, so more is to follow..... however, it is really not that much different than the 180/ with bar, and that one I had for 40.000 miles, so I doubt I will "discover" something new in the handling department..... it is possible to find out some nicer settings on the Konis for comfort, but that is pretty much it, do not expect much


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (virtual_dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_
With options D, E, or F should the lower portion of the bumpstop be attached somehow to the upper portion, I guess that is to say should 3a be attached to 3c from the other figure?
I've set my car up this way and left the dust sheild on the lower portion. However, I have not attached the two parts of the bumpstop and the lower portion sits down on the shock. Is there any problem with this?

Pyce is correct.... However, I glued together for 2 reasons:
1) I wanted to maintain the stock appearance of the boot/buffer and its relationship to the shock body. This way it only looks like I only changed the shocks on the car as the VW Europe 1BE springs for my Passat look like any other VW spring.
2) In the winters up here, I drive through *allot* of snow, sand, road salt etc. I felt the boot better protected/sheilded the shock's shaft from this stuff when used/placed as it originally was.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (RichB)*

Rich, actually I never even thought about you second point .... Here hardly rains even, so I do not have this mentality, but your point is very important, especially in the snow I guess you do not want your shafts to be exposed.... Guess more "custom" work has to be done as to have some sort of "snap-on, snap-off" dust cover, so you can remove it faster when playing with the washers. Maybe you can cut it in half (vertically) and then apply some velcro to both sides and simply later "unite" the two sides around the buffer and hold them together with the velcro.... Perhaps there are much better solutions, I just can't think much now....


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Dean - Yes, I will drive this setup for several hundred miles, maybe even more, so more is to follow..... however, it is really not that much different than the 180/ with bar, and that one I had for 40.000 miles, so I doubt I will "discover" something new in the handling department..... it is possible to find out some nicer settings on the Konis for comfort, but that is pretty much it, do not expect much










Will stand by to hear of any new discoveries - handling and/or comfort.
In the meantime I'm off to search thru the 300 pages (printed) of this thread to find Peter's Shine/Shine/bar settings. Someone really ought to put all these results in a spreadsheet








Dean


----------



## RichB (Jun 7, 2003)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Rich, actually I never even thought about you second point .... Perhaps there are much better solutions, I just can't think much now....

Don't sweat it..... Winter is still a good three months away!







This was on my Passat anyway which is my daily driver in the winter and all year round business car so I will not be playing around with this stuff on that car. I'm sure we will figure something out for those of us that drive our Golfs, Jettas, or GTIs in the white stuff.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Tuning With Buffers.... (WI-TDI-Fan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_ ....In the meantime I'm off to search thru the 300 pages (printed) of this thread to find Peter's Shine/Shine/bar settings. ....

Dean, do not bother to search, there is no settings on the 180/ with bar because for that short period of time Konis and 180/w bar were on the same car - the front were still Bilsteins. Then the 180 went out in a day or two and other springs came in.... then the bar broke..... and only then (with other springs) the rebound testing started.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Tires First....*

Some quiet interesting, longer term, experiments I wanted to share with all of you here …..
Many new members come to this forum and ask the question “I want my car to handle better, what I do first”….. Often the answer (for the more experienced folks) is “Tires First!”…... Somehow this advise, most of the time, goes overlooked, because people do actually prefer “firmer feel” of the car (less rolling to begin with) as that gives the feeling that now your car is much faster in curves, etc. So, many chose to go with the “perceived” handling enhancement that let’s say some stiffer springs and harder dampers do give. I myself got fooled this way too! So, here is an interesting experiment we did: As you may know by now (if someone cares to read all the long posts here) we do have a Jetta and a New Beetle at home. The Jetta has all sorts of mods (the subject of the whole thread) and the NB is bone stock. So, in an attempt to gain real life knowledge through direct comparison and understand what tires really do, we equipped the Bug with 205-55-16 Potenza S-03 on stock 16 x 6.5 VW wheel. Those are half way through their life tires I have from last year….. Then we equipped the all pepped-up with springs and shocks Jetta, with same size (205-55-16) Michelin Energy Touring tires that come as OE on some of the Bugs, Jettas WE, etc. Now, someone may say that it is still not fare comparison because it has to be on the same car and I agree, but still it gives a very good idea and also saves a lot more time (imagine have to swap springs and shocks back to back for few days as to try all this? No way!) Also, I must say that the Bug had always been much better than any stock Jetta and Golf I have driven. The ultimate road holding could be the same (between the A4 platform) but the Bug always felt much better in stock form….. But anyway, it is still a stock A4 and many are not satisfied with it regardless. So, have driven both cars back to back for several weeks now, mountains, highways, long touring trips, you name it. The reason it took me more than one month is because meanwhile we were changing rear springs on the Jetta constantly, so to have more data for the comparison. To the best situation yesterday when we put Shine 200 Rears to go together with the always-in-there Shine 225 Front. (Waited all this time as to get some serious setup in there, so for the experiment to be more valid), Do not even need more than a day to drive the Shine 225/200 as to draw conclusions, because the difference is easy to notice and just extended drive last nigh on the specific for the test roads, was enough to get the picture. Konis had been all around for all this time.…… But enough about the setups. Let’s talk about the results:
Well, as many know from their own experience, the outcome is really easy to describe – the stock car on max performance tires wins hands down any road holding test I put it through! The pepped-up Jetta on Touring tires comes the closest with the stiffest Shine 225/200 setup, but the ultimate speeds through corners are still slower than those offered by the Bug. The funny part is that the Jetta still “feels” faster in the mountains and perhaps in the city, with sharp 90 degree corners, but when you look the speedo at every specific corner, it shows different story! The only thing with the Bug is that you have to “dare” and not be afraid from the massive roll the car has on those better tires. Basically, on the 2002 models (the one I have) they replaced the cute sunglasses holder above the driver’s seat with a handle, so you can hold yourself on there…well, use it!







You feel that you going on 2 wheels, but you do not. Instead, the thing just corners like the tires are glued to the road. It feels scarier, but ultimately it is not. The Jetta seems to do all of this with such ease and gives the feeling that it will go even faster with the same ease, but just one more mph and the front starts slipping away. And it is the same story everywhere… on fast highway curves, on and off ramps, parking lots, etc….. Basically, if ultimate road holding is the goal number one in upgrading the suspension, the advice “Tires First” is really sound. If *“feel”* or perhaps *"look”* is important, then yeah, suspension first is probably what you need, but do not fool yourself that your car is much more capable if you are still on the OE touring tires – it is “slightly” more capable if pushed to where most of the time we do not go, and the rest is just “feel” of being capable on slower speeds….
So, really, *Tires First!* It is close to incredible what a complete stocker would do with just great tires…..
P.S: A very important note here …. The “feeling” when driving is that a Stock car benefits much more from switching to better tires than a Tuned car. This perhaps explains why some Shine owners (me as well in the past) do feel that their cars work great with Touring tires. I guess the better geometry provided by the better suspension setup do somehow make a touring tire work significantly better that what would the same tire offer on softer-rolling setup such as the stock. I mean, the improvement on a stock car (switching form touring to max performance tires) seems much greater than the same improvement on a Shine tuned car. Of course, with all tires being the same, the Shine tuned car would outperform the stocker….. 
Nothing new for some, food for thoughts for others....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Alexb75's springs*

Hi Folks,
Does anyone recall whether Alexb75 installed VR6 or 4-cyl SofSports on his car (and whether it's a 4-cyl car)? I know that 4dbunny has VR6 springs on his 4-cyl car, and PhatVW has VR6 springs on a VR6, but I can't find the info on Alex -- thank you!
- W


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Alexb75's springs (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hi Folks,
Does anyone recall whether Alexb75 installed VR6 or 4-cyl SofSports on his car (and whether it's a 4-cyl car)? I know that 4dbunny has VR6 springs on his 4-cyl car, and PhatVW has VR6 springs on a VR6, but I can't find the info on Alex -- thank you!
- W

Hey guys,
I am in Copenhagen now! Been busy here and haven't followed the thread that much, but very interesting stuff done by Peter http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
To answer ur question.. I installed the 1.8T springs. I think I posted the wheelgaps sometime ago, but not 100% sure...
Keep up the good work guys... will contribute when I get back.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Alexb75's springs (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Hi Folks,
Does anyone recall whether Alexb75 installed VR6 or 4-cyl SofSports on his car (and whether it's a 4-cyl car)? I know that 4dbunny has VR6 springs on his 4-cyl car, and PhatVW has VR6 springs on a VR6, but I can't find the info on Alex -- thank you!
- W

According to [email protected], the VR6 and 4-cyl Sofsport springs are identical even though the part numbers are different. I ordered the VR6 springs, and the box I got actaully says 1.8T on a little affixed label. Greg said this is by design. The VR6 sits about 1/4" in the front which from Neuspeed's perspective isn't enough to warrant having a completely new spring.
The Sport springs, however, are different because the VR6 would simply sit too low with the 4-cyl springs in that case.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Alexb75's springs (phatvw)*

Thanks for the info, guys -- I appreciate it! (And Alex, hope you're having a great time in Denmark!)

_Quote, originally posted by *phatvw* »_
According to [email protected], the VR6 and 4-cyl Sofsport springs are identical even though the part numbers are different. I ordered the VR6 springs, and the box I got actaully says 1.8T on a little affixed label. Greg said this is by design. The VR6 sits about 1/4" in the front which from Neuspeed's perspective isn't enough to warrant having a completely new spring.


PhatVW, that's really interesting. Do you know if the same thing is true about the rear springs -- that is, are the rear Golf/GTI vs. Jetta rear SofSports different in length, or are they also identical? Thanks again!
- Ceilidh


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Alexb75's springs (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Thanks for the info, guys -- I appreciate it! (And Alex, hope you're having a great time in Denmark!)
PhatVW, that's really interesting. Do you know if the same thing is true about the rear springs -- that is, are the rear Golf/GTI vs. Jetta rear SofSports different in length, or are they also identical? Thanks again!
- Ceilidh

I don't think Greg mentioned the rear springs. I would imagine that the golf/gti rear springs are all the same, and perhaps the jetta/jetta wagon is just slightly taller. You can email him directly - he's usually pretty good with responses.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Dude, Where is my Shine.....*

Guys, check this out! Below are the results from some short term testing (for the last week or so) and some longer term testing from the last month. Some of the results are quiet important (at least to me) and may turn around all this thread….
1. Shine 225/200 – _”Dude, Where is my Shine?”_








……. So, I got really determined this time to try to understand in more dept what exactly is going on with the Shine 225/200 and give it a final try to do something with the dampers so to make this combo as comfortable as I can stand on our roads and my long commutes. For this reason decided to start back from zero and build from there, this time at very slow steps, applying the knowledge gained through this long thread. Starting from zero means put back the rebound at full soft (0% stiff). And here the big surprise comes. I was expecting to get very bouncy ride due to the strong spring and soft damper setting, but nothing like that happened! It got, instead, like a stock-smooth-incredibly-comfortable-ride! Yes, I do realize that sounds weird to all of you, but I am telling you the truth. This setup, at 0% stiff in the front and 25% stiff in the rear is “The King of The Concrete”, LOL!







Only on specific surfaces it becomes little bit under-dampened (means it wallows little bit like a boat and some may experience sea-sick like feeling) but I have very little surfaces like this and can completely live with it. For the really crap roads in the city and for the repetitive concrete joints, this setup is perfect! …. So, here is why the opening sentence “Dud, Where is my Shine?” – because on full soft the whole car feels almost like stock riding car and a lot of the Shine feel (firmness) is completely gone. The known as high-rate-for-the-street Shine springs are actually comfortable, and I know this sounds very funny specially said by me. The only conclusion from what I am experiencing now is that dampers do contribute for the ride quality significantly more than the springs, and significantly more than what I thought even after all these experiments so far. Now it makes perfect sense to me why the H&R DB coil-overs are 400 F and 295R (IIRC) and the ride was better than my Shine on Bilsteins back then. I now believe that it is possible to make a strong spring comfortable as it all entirely depends on the damper’s valving. This said, here are few points I would like to make as to conclude this part of the post:
A. Off the shelf, neither Bilsteins nor Koni dampers are suitable for strong springs for our cars, if high level of comfort is desired on the street. (Koni on soft can get close, but the low speed dampening is not there, while the high speed dampening is great)
B. 200 to 300 lb/in spring rates are not prohibitive even for bad streets, they just have to be really “matched” with specifically designed for those rates dampers. (Yes, I know, many here have been saying this long time ago, but I always had trouble experiencing it with strong spring like the Shine, so I had to get there as to believe it.)
C. Is it remotely possible that Dick actually re-valves his HDs (the ones he sells with his Kit) so those who got the whole thing from him have great ride and those (like me) got the dampers previously, so purchased only the springs, and therefore the ride was not as good as it could be?
D. Anyone knows of a place that re-vales Koni Yellows, so I can contact them and see what is really possible to do to my dampers as to get even better results? Thanks…
Now, someone would ask how did it happen that with all this experiments while having the Shine front in there all the time, I never got these results…… The answer is simple: I got fooled. Started the experiments at 50% rebound (we are talking about the front now) and tried to go down, but once you get around 20-30% it gets even worse, so I thought there is no point going lower as it can only get worse, because I thought it is “linear” relation with comfort. Also, I notice that going higher (like around 75%) the frequency changes in such way that the damper is so strong, it almost kills the spring’s travel and on the concrete for some reason it is pretty comfortable…. I mean, it Is not that bad, so I could live with it. And anyway, everybody had been always saying that soft dampers on strong spring make the car bouncy, and as I was getting bad results with 25-30 % rebound, the thought was that below should be close to what people say, so why really bother….. But, it is right there, the secret for comfort…. But mind you, this works on my streets and on Winston’s streets may not work (as he reported earlier) because of the different pattern of the irregularities. All I am saying is that this precise experiment is enough to prove (at least to me) that dampers can do a lot more and that we have a great chance to male this work perfectly. Just have to find who to make the dampers to really match the springs…
2. This one is also very interesting…. Still Shine 225/200, but we talk now about handling. This setup, but with the Front rebound set at 0% stiff (full soft) and the rear at 25% stiff – turned out to be the best ever I had for turn-in and road holding in curve. Understeer is incredibly reduced. I can actually even start accelerating before the apex and the front is still there, planted like never before! The car do rolls more and may give the impression that it is actually “handling less” but the speedo does not lie – it is faster! Specially the first part of the curve is fantastic! I would really invite all the Shine owners with Konis to go out and try the 0% stiff front setup and see what goes. The car is very comfy, but did not lose (it actually gained) his curving capabilities. It just does not feel that planted and that stiff like before, therefore it is like driving a not-shined car, but the results are actually better…… Please, someone try and report back. Thanks.
3. Here we go with Shine 225 / Stock Rear ….. Put back the stock rears, just to see what happens with the new-found 0% rebound. Even more comfortable! This is now the perfect cruiser, but again, on the concrete and in the city. Do not know how well it will work on some other type of crappy roads. Had a chance to play with the “washers” again and can say that if you preload the buffers, the “handling” feel is really as good as a Shine 225/200 with no buffers. Our cars can really be tuned that way and I am kidding you not. You can have the stock rear comfort when you need it and have the fun Shine rear with just few washers when you need it. The only difference remains the ride height, but custom low-rate rear spring that will lower some the rear could be produced easily…. If needed.
4. The things that ones discovers when casualty strikes….. The front window felt down on my Jetta, so I could not drive it on long trips for few days (trips that required parking the car somewhere else than my garage) before those get fixed. Here I wold like to go little bit off topic and say a nice word about this car, because many fellow VW owners are very unhappy with their cars (quality issues) but mine (so far) had been the best thing I ever owned (trouble wise) so wanted to say something positive about it. I mean, 85.000 miles and the first thing ever to break was the window regulator, and later on I found out that there is recall for those, so the dealer fixed it even on the other door for free. I never had a car in all my life that would go this far with nothing to ever break. (this said, I may blow a turbo tonight, just because the Murphy’s Law Is always there for us LOL







)….. But back to the topic. So, basically I had to drive the wife’s Bug, that from the previous post you know is now equipped with S-03 tires (for the moment)…. Well, and here is the major “trouble” that happened when driving for few days that stock Bug – Basically I discovered even more what the stock suspension can do on good tires…. Actually, on great tires. To say it with few words, the bug in this configuration can outperform the Jetta with Shine 225/200 at any time on any curve, everywhere in the mountains! Yes, we have done some comparison through the previous post (Tires First!), but now I had a chance to take the car to more remote locations with other fantastic twisties I know very well, so had a chance to extend the comparison and have a more complete picture of what both cars give/take. I can only imagine what that car would be with nice set of dampers. With the stock springs/dampers it does not feel sporty as the Jetta and it gives the wrong feeling that it is slower, because it rolls more, but the speedo does not lie again. Stock car with some great tires is actually the very first thing ones should do, before starting to even trim the buffers…….. Now someone would say, yes but when you combine those great tires with let’s say Full Shine Kit – it is even faster. And that would be pretty correct statement. The thing is, at that point is becomes way too fast for street use, specially in capable hands, and when driven at normal speeds it becomes boring. Also, here we are more into the “GT” setup, the one that does not have ultimate handling, but it trades some for comfort, which is very important for the long trips on not-so-great-roads which we have plenty. To me, even the Shine 225/200 with no bar is more than what a “GT” setup should be like. Then you have to downgrade the tires, as to have fun at low speeds…. But then I rather have the stock setup with great tires, still faster if needed, and more comfortable for longer trips. The whole thing is that people (and I was there too) in general do not dare too much with their stock configuration, because the car does not feel like is going to hold the road at certain speeds, so they immediately look for suspension upgrades. Get something stiffer, so they feel more in control, therefore more confidence and now the curves are taken with higher speeds, and the conclusion is that “this new suspension rocks” and “now I can go at 50 where before I could not go at 40”….. The truth is, we could go at 50 even before, we just did not dare to try as at 42-43 the car already “felt” like is going to fly out of the curve, but actually it is not the case. Actually, both cars could maybe even go at 60 on that precise curve, we just do not dare to try it, because it is on the open street. One more reason to learn what the stock car can do first, and only then mod where (if) necessary….
5. After driving the Bug for few days extensively, I found it very different than what my stock Jetta was once. Yes, it was long time ago, but still I have some vague remembering that the Jetta was much softer and was rolling more, etc…. Anyway, decided to explore little bit more what is the difference between the Big and the Jetta. Put them on the ramps in the garage next to each other and took a trip underneath. Here is what I found so far:
a – The Bug has one less coil on the front spring compare to the stock Jetta I have ( 6 vs. 7 complete coils) which if everything else being equal means noticeable increase in rates. From Winston I hear that his GTI front also has 6 coils, so perhaps that is part of the reason the GTI and NB are better in stock form than a regular GLS Jetta. I have to measure the coil diameter today, but they look really close…
b – The Bug has stronger rear springs (same color code as the Jetta GLI)
c – The Bug has stiffer rear sway bar. Did not measure it, but noticed when lifting the front of the car, the rear wheel lifts together with the front. Something happened to me only when I had the strong Shine bar in. With no aftermarket bar in the rear, the Jetta needs to lift the front much higher before the rear detaches from the ground…
d – The Bug uses the shorter and stiffer “C” Buffers.
There could be other things, but I need to get the calipers today and do some measurements, so we know more later….. Anyway, it is already quiet a different car (when stock) from my Jetta. I mean, installing just dampers on a Bug may not give the same results as installing just dampers on a standard Jetta/Golf..
I have to go now, so later today will write about the “Long Term” experiments we have been going through. Anyway, I guess many may disagree with a lot of things I said on this post, so bring it on, let’s have a discussion……Later


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
a – The Bug has one less coil on the front spring compare to the stock Jetta I have ( 6 vs. 7 complete coils) which if everything else being equal means noticeable increase in rates. From Winston I hear that his GTI front also has 6 coils, so perhaps that is part of the reason the GTI and NB are better in stock form than a regular GLS Jetta. I have to measure the coil diameter today, but they look really close…
b – The Bug has stronger rear springs (same color code as the Jetta GLI)
c – The Bug has stiffer rear sway bar. Did not measure it, but noticed when lifting the front of the car, the rear wheel lifts together with the front. Something happened to me only when I had the strong Shine bar in. With no aftermarket bar in the rear, the Jetta needs to lift the front much higher before the rear detaches from the ground…


It's fairly apparent from your description that the stock NB suspension is significantly different from the stock Jetta TDI suspension. Did you get the color codes from the NB front springs? Also, the stiffer factory rear bar could be playing a significant role here as well, you're still running with only the factory rear bar in the Jetta, correct?
I still havn't gotten my rear bar in, hopefully one night this week I can squeez in the time for that. Been spending all my time getting the Jeep ready for a rock-crawling comp next month...
Peace


----------



## Daemon42 (Feb 9, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (roscoe13)*

Of course there are other little details.. like.
The New Beetle weighs 400 lbs less than the Jetta TDi (2712lbs versus 3148-3212 lbs). 
It has a different weight distribution due to not having a trunk. Together that's going to
give the impression of having higher rate rear springs.
ian


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (Daemon42)*

Good point! I went to the scale in the beginning of this thread and the number for the Jetta TDI GLS, leather, sunroof, blah-blah with half tank of fuel was 3020 lb...... I have not been there with the bug thought, so a "weight" trip is in order tonight, then at least we have both numbers for the car in this particular case.
edited to add - roscoe, yes, still stock rear bar for both cars. The color codes are 5 Pink front and 1 Silver 2 blue for the rear.


_Modified by pyce at 1:58 PM 7-6-2004_


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

One area of handling that you'll find tremendous differences in (NB S-03, vs TDI with 225/200) are quick transitions. Steady state cornering will reward ultimate grip, but quick transitional sequences (think slalom, emergency lane change, etc ....) will reward the better chassis set-up.
A while back, there was a lot of discussion on the Team.net boards about putting race rubber on stock vehicles. Some felt that this may have contributed to several snap-rollover events that year. Just something to consider ...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_One area of handling that you'll find tremendous differences in (NB S-03, vs TDI with 225/200) are quick transitions. Steady state cornering will reward ultimate grip, but quick transitional sequences (think slalom, emergency lane change, etc ....) will reward the better chassis set-up.

Chris, you are saying (the bolds) NB S-03, but you do not specify TDI Shine 225/200 with what tires ..... I do assume that you meant Touring tires as was the subject of my last post. If that is the case, I would say that the word "tremendous difference" you used is not quiet right. At least (to be correct) it is not what I experienced by driving both setups. The Bug does have more roll in the mountains (the closest I could get it to situations pointed by you like "slalom", even if mountain driving it not really a slalom) but this really does not mean the Jetta on Shine 225/200 on Touring tires got rewarded. Attention, I am not saying soft springs would outperform stiffer springs! My case is based on a specific New Beetle stock setup (which apparently is almost if not "the" top of the line stock VW A4 Front wheel drive) and a Jetta on Shine 225/200 with stock rear bar and specific touring tires which apparently nobody likes..... Given these two cars (and only these two cars!), with these precise setups as they are now, sorry to disagree with you, but I even find the Bug having an edge...... 


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_A while back, there was a lot of discussion on the Team.net boards about putting race rubber on stock vehicles. Some felt that this may have contributed to several snap-rollover events that year. Just something to consider ...

Yes, I remember seeing that red stock Focus going through an auto-cross on race rubber…. He almost rolled over ( I guess you all remember the movie it was here about 1-2 years ago)…. But I frankly think that a set of S-03 in 205-55-16 is not any near race rubber and would never bring you any near there. Yes, agree, the Bug may roll over if you hit something while sliding, but if that happens you will roll over on any tire as it will have nothing to do with the tires anyway. Tell you something funny – Last year I visited Wolfsburg and spent two days around the factory. Many of you may know they have this Autostadt, beautiful huge museum-like, very modern complex, where you can see all current and past VWAG production cars, etc. It was a great experience, but anyway the reason I am mentioning it is: There is a nice course they designed where you can test different cars, etc. One of the tasks you can subscribe and test is this Golf (actually few Golfs) all GTI 1.8T on factory sport susp. and 17” wheels on Michelin Pilot sport tires. They give you the car and let you drive in a rectangular smooth place, big enough so you can put even third gear before run out of space. So, here is the deal, they tell you: “Try to roll over the car and if you manage, we give you a brand new one for free!” …… Needless to say I did not manage and needless to say that so far no one managed to drive away from Wolfsburg inn a new GTI from this attraction







Chris, all I am saying is that on ordinary rubber is quiet difficult to roll over, unless something stupid is done, and in that case you roll regardless. You have a great point for the race rubber, and perhaps I have to yet experience that sort of compound, but on this thread here I doubt someone would go out in stock setup on race compound. I think majority of us here is very far from going where you are…..


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

Super report Peter http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Like you, my daily commute is a lengthy one, filled with concrete expansion joints, miserable city street, and the oft heaved asphault here in SE Wisc. On top of a daily commute just to the office, I may on a given day add another 200-300 miles visiting customer sites. Ride quality is a concern.
As mentioned, and I am a guilty party, it is not uncommon to jump to conclusions and determine without experimentation that a major modification to the suspension is needed to improve handling. That said, I jumped at the opportunity to purchase a set of Shine springs from another V'texer - 225/200 BTW. Koni's are on the way, and steadily reading this thread has made me think twice as to whether I made a proper decision. 
Your report on the 225/200 setup is encouraging to say the least. It will be interesting to on the surfaces that I drive on if comparable results are to be had. For now, w/o the Shines or Koni's installed, the swap to 17" michelins (OEM from a Jetta GLI) has made a difference in both handling and ride. While maybe not the best of tires it's what I have to work with. Down the road maybe a 16" wheel/tire combo will add more to the Shine/Koni setup. In the mean time, I again commend you for your time, physical effort, and undying devotion to bring us this far. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








Lastly, and I apologize if I missed this, but in you latest testing with the Shine 225/200. Koni 0%F/25%R, did you have the bump stops in or out, and if in, was there any modification to these (i.e stock version cut to 'C" version length, etc.)
Again, great post. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Dean


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (WI-TDI-Fan)*

Dean…
We do not know each other and someone may accuse me now of “doing wrong” in saying what I am going to say, but if you allow me I would go ahead and tell you that 17” wheels, with Shine 225/200 on concrete (and bad roads in general) for up to 200-300 miles per day is a big no-no IF general comfort is a concern. Konis will give you better ride than Bilsteins, but still is not going to be as good as you may want it to be….. If you do not mind doing the swaps, then the best ever thing would be to go and try it, because I may be wrong again and you may end up with something you would enjoy (as many here do) but my feeling from reading your posts is that it may not be the ticket for you. Sorry, I may sound negative, but this is what I think. I wish you prove me wrong and come back with smiling face. I wish I can say “Shine for everybody!” as it is truly great package, but it really isn’t for everyone, for many reasons….
As for the buffers, when the 200 rears are there, I remove all washers and lower and mid part of the buffers, just to make sure there is no contact on normal driving. Shine 200 with buffers is very hard! Do consider that your “B” buffers (I assume you have those) are already pre-loaded when going Shine 200 in the rear. I have to yet test the rates on those (waiting for new set, as mine are cut and paste million times and may skew the results) but they do get very hard very fast, and just by sitting in the car, your rear rate is already quiet some above the 220 of the spring.


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

I'll confirm what Peter has mentioned about wheel/tire size. I had a chance to drive my car (at the time it was completely stock) with OEM 17" wheels back to back with another 1.8t GTI with the SRS kit (springs, bilsteins, bar) and OEM 16" wheels. The drive was around a few city blocks in midtown Atlanta and although not the best place to judge performance, it was a great place to judge ride comfort. My impression was that my car (17") feels and sounds like it has worse ride quality, the bumps feel sharper and all imperfections in the road are transferred to noise in the cabin. The SRS car (16") didn't have nearly as much noise and seemed to absorb more of the sharp bumps.
For the kind of driving Peter is talking about, expansion joints and small sharp bumps, I would say tire size will make a larger difference than on other types of roads. I drive mostly on very smooth roads, no cracks or bumps, but the roads do have more rolling dips and with my current setup (Neuspeed Sports and Konis) I find that the car follows all of the roads imperfections, especially at high speeds. With these types of roads I don't think tire size would make as much of a difference.
Bottom line, if you're concerned about ride quality go with the 16" wheels if you can.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

Super report Peter http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Id like to echo that "stiffer" springs with "softer damping" seems to be the key..
My car is an A2 Golf... but
I had 200lb Shine fronts, 120lb Shine rears (std for A2 AFAIK) and Bilstien HDs and VR6 bearings
It was a roller skate in the corners..








It "crashed and bashed" over the potholes








I got some 225lb fronts from Eli. I (misunderstood) that they were taller - they are the same free lenght as the 200lbs that I had (about 11")
BUT
The 225lb springs raised the car 3/4" back up to OEM height.
Now I was concerned that the front spring would be too stiff. WRONG>
The car handles the potholes BETTER than the OEM springs and with NO crash and bash. Even in the super deep holes the "bang" is VERY muted and controllable.
I cant comment on handling as its only had an "eyeball" alignement (as in whell thats how it went togehter so I guess its OK) and Im putting a new tie rod in so Im not going ot align it until I get hte rear spacer in to raise the REAR up by 3/4" to stock ride height.
My guess is that with the 200lb springs and the 3/4" drop the car was hitting the internal bump stops on the front struts - thats what the bash was..
IM thinking I could go even stiffer with the spring rate *IF* I keep stock ride heights


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

I agree with your assessment of the S-03s capabilities (lower levels of grip than R-compound tires). Just trying to isolate the difference in transitional handling with OE springs/dampers, vs higher rate springs/dampers.
I imagine (I can only imagine, having never driven one) that the NB will easily bounce off the bump-stops with very aggressive left right transitions - bounce hard enough and the chassis will be upset enough to be difficult to control - perhaps on two wheels for a brief moment.
A bit off topic for this thread (street driving, vs competition driving), however thought I'd throw it out there on the off hand chance that someone reading through, may eventually want to auto-x their ride.


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*

Peter, in no way do I take offense. I value the input you and other have made here.
Having said that, some of the best things I've learned in life have come by way of the "School of Hard Knocks", even though I've also spent numerous hours in higher level education classrooms/lecture halls. I suspect this may be the case when it comes to my Jetta and a Shine/Koni combination. I've got the parts and pieces, and a plethora of info from this thread, so I'm gonna take the dive and try for myself - with a little bit of organization. Looking at it another way, at some point in time the Jetta will need new dampers anyway, so the Koni's will not go unused - they won't rot in the box. The springs on the other hand, can be dealt with - i.e sold to one of the 'vultures' here on Vortex







(I've already been approached !) A few miles worth of testing is not going to depreciate them measureably.
In the ultimate scheme of things it would be nice to have a set of 16" tires/wheels on hand for the purposes of comparison while different damper/spring combos are installed. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to run out and purchase another set of tires/wheels, so I'll have to make do with testing on the OEM 15" tires/wheels that came on the car, and the OEM 17"ers that are on the car now. Maybe as resources become available, I'll acquire a set of 16"ers and flog whatever does not work out in the end. 16" and 17" Monte Carlos and pretty easy to unload.
I've pretty much come up with a test plan. It goes like this:
1) OEM springs/Koni dampers/OEM 15" tires
2) Same as above but w/17" OEM tires
3) Shine 225 F/stock rear/Koni dampers/OEM 15"
4) Same as above but w/17" OEM tires
5) Shine 225/200/Koni dampers/OEM 15"
6) Same as above but with 17" OEMS
Of course during each testing phase, damper settings and bumpstop heights will be adjusted / noted.
I suspect that in the end my results will be similar to your - but I've got to see for my self. 
Dean


----------



## mitsui-g (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
1. Shine 225/200 – _”Dude, Where is my Shine?”_







……. So, I got really determined this time to try to understand in more dept what exactly is going on with the Shine 225/200. This setup, at 0% stiff in the front and 25% stiff in the rear is “The King of The Concrete”, LOL!







Only on specific surfaces it becomes little bit under-dampened (means it wallows little bit like a boat and some may experience sea-sick like feeling) but I have very little surfaces like this and can completely live with it. For the really crap roads in the city and for the repetitive concrete joints, this setup is perfect! …. So, here is why the opening sentence “Dud, Where is my Shine?” 

should this set up be attempted on a Shined 225F/150R? I've had my front at full soft since I installed my koni's, not by choice but because something happened during the install .One of the front strut adjusting knob is stuck at full soft







.... I have the rears at 3/4 turn from soft. 
What do you think? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif or http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine.....*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_ ….I imagine (I can only imagine, having never driven one) that the NB will easily bounce off the bump-stops with very aggressive left right transitions - bounce hard enough and the chassis will be upset enough to be difficult to control - perhaps on two wheels for a brief moment.

We are going to have a mini-event this weekend and some NB are involved, so I hope to be able to simulate the aggressive left-right you are talking about and see what happens.







We will try to do comparison among A4 platforms (all stock) and try to learn something….

_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_ ……. some of the best things I've learned in life have come by way of the "School of Hard Knocks"…. 

Those are the best! I am also in the same “school” and love it so far









_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_ …..I've pretty much come up with a test plan. It goes like this:
1) OEM springs/Koni dampers/OEM 15" tires
2) Same as above but w/17" OEM tires
3) Shine 225 F/stock rear/Koni dampers/OEM 15"
4) Same as above but w/17" OEM tires
5) Shine 225/200/Koni dampers/OEM 15"
6) Same as above but with 17" OEMS 

Great plan! This will (or will not) confirm a lot of things we found out with Winston. I have been through #3 and #5 only, so we will have some common points for reference! Thank you very much for going through all this – it will be extremely valuable to all of us!

_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_ ….I suspect that in the end my results will be similar to your – *but I've got to see for my self*. 

That is, right there, the most important part of all this! No words can describe it, no one can transfer that to you! It would be great if everyone goes through this, even if I fully understand it is not possible….

_Quote, originally posted by *mitsui-g* »_
should this set up be attempted on a Shined 225F/150R? I've had my front at full soft since I installed my koni's...... 

Tell me please, what do you think on the Full Soft in the front as you have it right now? It is very interesting for me. Thanks!


----------



## mitsui-g (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Tell me please, what do you think on the Full Soft in the front as you have it right now? It is very interesting for me. Thanks!


This being my second upgrade from Tokico HP matted with shine springs, I would say it is a world of difference. Ride is not bouncy, turn in is great, handling is great according to my style of driving. As an example one particular off ramp has an advisory speed limit of 30km/hr. With stock I used to it at 50km, with Tokico/shine 75km. Now the same off ramp I took the other day at 115km and to be honest the car just followed my steering input, nothing scarry.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Spring Rates*

Hello Folks,
Just a quick note in case anyone's wondering what's become of my SofSport experiment -- Peter and I have been finding that the topic of "spring rate" (particularly stock spring rates and the effective SofSport rate on particular cars) is a little more involved than one might think.
I'm also unfortunately completely swamped at work, and haven't had time to post. But there are some interesting experiments & calculations/ measurements going on (particularly on Peter's end), and you should be hearing about them soon.
Have a nice weekend, all of you!
- Ceilidh


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Back to basic .....*

Back to Stock..... or almost Stock, as we have four Koni Yellow dampers.
So, I found a pare of those 3 White 2 blue front springs from a V6 24V 03'GTI and they went in the car this morning. Did not have a chance to drive it a lot (mostly highway anyway) so there is no comments to do yet, but there is an interesting weekend coming, so I guess next week I would be able to spend some time and try to describe what we will find in the next few days.....
So far can only say that this new spring is not really soft. Yes, it is not as strong as the Shine spring, but it is quiet a step ahead from my original stock front spring. Winston did some calculation form the data I managed to extract with the caliper and it came out that the poor Stock TDI Front spring is about 49 - 57 lb/in softer than the V6 spring we got. I would not say the numbers because do not want to mislead anyone, as we are not sure yet which spring tester to believe (same springs showed different rates on two different testers.... and it is quiet a difference) so for the moment we only know that the difference in between the two is (or very close ot that) as posted above. Basically:
Stock Front TDI spring - 7 total coils (including upper pig-tail) and average of 0,500" wire diameter.
Stock V6 24V GTI spring - 6 total coils (including upper pig-tail) and average of 0,519" wire diameter.
So, one less coil and bigger wire diameter account for about 49 - 57 ln/in increment in spring rate..... But we have to dig little bit more on this and finalize (soon) what the real spring rates are (or to come as close as we can)
Also, for those planning to purchase those springs for Jetta's TDI - Your front ride height will be slightly above Shine front height, without even the spacer! On my car the measurements are (from center of wheel to top of fender lip):
Shine Front L=15" R=15 1/8"
3W 2B V6 Front L=15 1/4" R=15 1/4"
This was measured minutes after the install, so I suspect everything may come down little bit over the night. You all have great weekend and Drive Safely! .... I will try to do the same


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Back to basic ..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_You all have great weekend and Drive Safely! .... I will try to do the same








Drive safely, but push - push - push and have fun!















None of these "solutions" mean anything if they are driven at 1/10th


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Back to basic ..... (f1forkvr6)*

...... That is why I said: "I will *try* to do the same"..... I am sure I will fail


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: Back to basic ..... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Drive safely, but push - push - push and have fun!

















Hehehe... He's on stock springs with no rear bar, of course he's gonna push





























Peace


----------



## kwhiner (Jan 2, 2001)

*Re: Dude, Where is my Shine..... (WI-TDI-Fan)*

WI-TDI-FAN,
Just a comment coming to this thread fairly late in the game. Have had the Shine 225/200 Bilstein HD set up for about 3 yrs. I'm also somewhat funding limited and have been using basically stock tire wheel sets. Winter Conti CH95 195/65-15 on steelies, summer Dunlop A2 Sport 205/60-15 Avus Mags, have found the combo to be good. Don't have to deal with that much rough pavement here in the NV desert and I don't spend much time in the slower lanes of I80 going over the hill to Sacto or SFBA. The ride is a little rough on the well used sections of concrete, but once reaching the asphalt it smooths out and quiets down both.
Good luck. Will have watch and see what results you get with your experimenting.
Peter,
Curious to hear more on the VR6/Koni combo. May just be a good combo for you guys in the urban setting. Have thought in hindsight if something along that line wouldn't have been plenty for me. BUT, NO WAY I'm giving up my Shine now. I like it.
kwhiner


_Modified by kwhiner at 4:13 PM 7-11-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Back to "stock" ....*

It had been a very long weekend, probably one of the last for me spending so much time in the car(s) in trying to “understand” it. There was an opportunity to drive back to back several other cars, equipped with other suspension mods, so it was same driver, same roads, one car after another driven the same way in attempt to compare and understand where the differences are. For the records, the cars I had in disposition were a Bug with stock everything and HDs, my “stock” Jetta and a Golf that was lowered pretty much on Bilstein PSS coilovers. The reason I say “Stock” for my car is because this setup is actually not really the stock setup that came with the car. The front spring is as you all know from a V6 24V and that is one strong spring if compared to the stock 2 pink 2 green. Then there are the Koni Yellow that make the world of difference, so to call my car *stock* would be quiet inappropriate, but I will use the brackets and you will know what it is all about. The “interesting” part about the Golf on the PSS coilovers was that the car came with 15” stock wheels and stock OE touring tires, so we could evaluate pretty well what a great tire on “stock” car can do against great suspension system on not-so-great tire….. but let me say few words about this legendary PSS system, as so much had been said on these boards about it and it is always “love it or hate it” thing. The very first impression is really great! Just drive it around the block and it immediately makes the thought “smooth” to come to mind as does exceptionally well on all the small irregularities on the otherwise not bad road. There is no way for the driver to feel that there are 400 lb springs front and 315 lb rear (advertised, do not know the real numbers, but let’s assume they are close to correct). It was really one of the biggest surprises I had since starting to fool around with springs and dampers on this car……. All this lasted till I hit the highway (really bad concrete part on 101) and then the thing transformed and became quiet jarring. Mind you, this was on very comfortable Continental 15” OE Touring tires. I have no idea how people can drive this car on concrete with 17 or 18” wheels. So, left the highway and again the car was fantastic, ride quality was superb! Basically, at the end of the test it was safe to conclude that the car was doing incredibly well (comfort wise) on the regular type of irregularities, but was doing quiet bad on big bumps and concrete joints. It felt like anything that requires bigger than half inch of suspension travel was really hard and anything below that travel was almost un-noticeable. I do (now) understand why some people love it and some hate it. If the user lives in a place with not so crappy roads, it is really an outstanding system. I think that if the roads are not incredibly bad, this system provides even more comfort that anything else I have tried. That valving they did must be some work of art, because it is really impossible to guess the high spring rate from how the car rides…… sure the music would change if bigger wheels/performance tires are mounted, but still, I have never experienced such ride on OE tires before. But again, you start going through some bad roads and you may regret you got this setup! …… As for “handling”, well the car feels like any other car with high spring rates. There is almost no body roll, just the OE tires compress and squeal like pigs every time you even think of turning the steering wheel. It is really poor way to setup a car if performance is the goal. It is fantastic if you are after the “feel” of performance. It is fantastic to drive around this car on twisty roads, it really makes you feel you are flying, but it is not the case. The speedo does not lie and the speeds were the slowest (through curves) and tires were absolutely the weak point on the whole system. It was a balanced car thought, fantastic turn in, etc. but if driven (again) on not so bad roads… try the same on rough roads and the car “walks” over the surface and starts “skipping” like a bad CD. I noticed also the ABS comes on much more often and in places where I have never felt it before. Overall, it was the slowest car in pure speed through the curve scenario (that was entirely because of the tires) but was the absolute most fun for driving Golf I have experienced so far. I can only imagine what would have been on some performance tires! My conclusion is that damper’s valving is amazing way to tune, that if done properly could bring very acceptable amount of comfort to otherwise very strong spring. Guess a properly tuned coilover system (but really “system”, tuned together, not just replacing springs on exiting coilovers!) with about 180 – 200 lb/in front spring rate and about 140-150 lb/in rear spring rate could be a fantastic for every day use system, that due to the custom valving would have exceptional comfort characteristics and at the same time would have pretty good for a spirited GT setup spring rates, plus the ride height can be alternate if necessary (winter use, off-roading, etc)….. But I guess no coilover manufacturer would be interested in tuning “soft” rate systems below 200 lb/in rates and offer then as off-the shelf equipment. I am aware that many shops can assemble this for us, but how good they would be in “valving” the dampers for comfort and not only for performance?
Anyway, the next car I drove on the same course was a Bug with pretty strong (close to mine front and rear spring rates) on 16” Grand Touring tires, equipped with HDs. Of course, it would be stupid to compare this Bug with the Golf from the above test, because almost nothing from the suspension/tires was the same, so we have two entirely different packages. What strikes the most when driving that Beetle is the firm ride. Where the PSS was great on the not-so-bad part of the road, this one was not any near the same ride feel. And in fact, this is how I realized that the road was not-so-great, because when driving the first car I thought the same road was glass-smooth. Of course, there is the fact that 16” tires will always make the ride poorer than similar tire on 15” wheel, but then when you think that one had 300-400 lb springs and the other was on stock-below-150-200 lb springs, then it is again pretty clear that damper’s valving has a lot, really a lot to do with tuning for comfort. The HD’s on stock springs are not any near as exciting and fun to drive as the PSS. The Bug was faster in ultimate road holding on steady speed cornering and it took higher speeds to exceed the tires capabilities. It was boring to drive thought, and uncomfortable on the highway. That specific “broken-and-never-fixed-properly” concrete for that stretch of 5 miles where we drove was particularly unforgiving through the HDs. Also, I really do not notice any of the “much better turn-in with Bilsteins” that people are often talking about. I hope some of you will not get me wrong in thinking that I am trying to “push” the twine-tube Konis I have. I am trying very hard not to be biased. Please do remember that this is not “I have them, therefore they are the best” thing, because I do have them both actually. Everyone is absolutely free to believe whatever (and whoever) they want, but I feel that have to say what I found for myself. There is nothing in the Bilsteins that can’t be reproduced with Koni rebound settings. The only negative part is that the Konis “fade” some when is hot and when used aggressively and the Bilsteins seems to perform much better in regards of that. Also, there could be quality issues (longevity) with Konis, but only time will tell for that one. Anyway, both have life-time warranty, which I wish none of you would ever need to use. And (almost forgot) the HD and Sport do add significant amount of “spring rate” due to the high pressure gas inside (we are talking roughly from 40 to 80 lb/in for the fronts, for A4 chassis), so that can eventually help if more spring rate is desired with some softer spring applications……. But really, if anyone of you reading here, needs to go for dampers – please do yourself a huge favor and try two-three different cars with these, so you can feel for yourself the difference in comfort and if it is acceptable, then go ahead and purchase whatever pleases you. It is all very personal, very much depends on the roads it is driven and also the amount of time it is driven!
As for my new “stock” car, put more than 500 total miles since last Friday when it was installed. Instead of trying to write the impressions I have, went to read what Winston wrote about his GTI with Koni (starts at the end of page 12 and goes on from there). I think he had covered this combo in a way that I would not even get closer. The differences are in the fact that my front springs (and possibly the rears, but not sure about them) are slightly stiffer than his (about 10 – 15 lb/in) but I also guess that my car is slightly heavier in the front than his. Also, my car has 18 mm rear stock bar and his car (much lighter rear too) has 23 mm rear bar. Interesting enough, the GTI bar is not advertised as 23 mm, but he measured his by himself, and I have no reason to suspect his word. So, I guess that his car is more fun to drive than mine, by amount I can not comment on…….. I will go later and post some selected quotes from Winston’s posts about this setup, as there is nothing more than that I can add, just few things that come to mind now:
People take the new to them car and drive little but around and on some curves their front tires start squealing some and the first desire that comes to mind is “I need some suspension, because my car can not hold the road with his stock crap” and that is mistake number one. I have been there too and that is why I am only now learning what the stocker can do. The first thing to be done is to try to learn the current car and see what can be improved by simply doing the driver’s input differently. Basically what Ian calls “drive the hack out of what you have” and try to get the idea of what VW gave us stock, without changing anything. If it is really not enough (and I am sure for many of you will not be) then just upgrade the tires with really performance ones. A lot of folks do upgrade the suspension first, because it give them the “feeling” that they are faster and the lowered look that many desire so much, but now that I do drive actually almost a stock setup (finally!) I can tell you that many “upgrades” I have done in the past were mistakes, big mistakes! 95% of the suspensions that I tried on my car were NOT allowing the car to go faster through a curve. They just changed the general behavior of the car, so I got fooled that the car was faster. The lost comfort (read: stiffer ride) is usually one of the best ways to get fooled that the car now performs better. After the few trials for the last few weeks, I can assure you that max performance tires on an otherwise stock car can do a lot more than what a great suspension can achieve on poor tires (let’s exclude the driver’s abilities here, even if in cases like this the driver comes first). I am not saying you will be the local champ at the Sunday auto-x event with the stocker on great tires, but you will do much better than a lot of folks who got the flashy springs and dampers and slammed their cars, thinking that the lower center of gravity will give them the edge even if they are on an average tire……. Really, going 1.500$ coilover system on OE Touring tire is absolute waste of money (if performance was in mind). I hope some do not take it personally…. If it makes you feel better, I have been there too







He (Winston) likes to call this “driving slow car – fast” (many pages ago when describing the different setups), but I honestly do not see anything “slow” in this setup. With a nice set of tires, this “stock” car can give hard time to many suspension “upgrades” out there. Dampers and tires together do a lot more than what people think. The stock springs are NOT the problem on our cars (ok, not the main problem, if the word “problem” can be used). The car comes with econo touring tires (mine at least) and comes with very soft tuned dampers for better comfort. The spring rates on some VWs (sport package) are not bad at all (if blend of comfort and some performance is in mind), but somehow we start (ok, majority of us, not everyone) start with upgrading the springs first, which is really the last thing to do. Then what happens? Many get the “whole thing” together and that is the second mislead, because the springs (the majority of the lowering one) are on the softer side actually, but because they go in the car together with the much better (performance wise) dampers, the user thinks “Man, these springs are really nice, transformed my car into a sport sedan”……. Well, it was not because of the springs, it was because of the dampers. Do not believe me? Try H&R Sport on Stock dampers, but remove the bump stops first, so you will not get fooled that the spring is stronger because it is sitting on the bump stops…… What am I trying to say? That upgrading just the dampers on your otherwise not-bad-at-all GTI or NB and perhaps any A4 with Sport Package, may most probably bring you exactly where you want to be, so you do not need to make mistakes and downgrade at the same time with aftermarket springs. Then, hey, if it is not enough, please go ahead deeper and deeper, but this message is for those who do not look for the absolute “best” and “fastest”.
Basically, in conclusion I would like to say it again - most of the things that I tried on this thread and in general on my car were mistakes. Many would not believe it (and what can I do) but the Sport Package on our VW with some decent dampers and good tires can go beyond what most of us really need for street use. I would understand the people who upgrade because of some sort of competition, but for what majority of us here needs – this is more than everything needed! If you want to have more “fun” with your car at 7/10-th (discussion earlier on these thread) then yes, go for it. Coilovers on touring tires are fun too, please do it if you wish, but it is important to know that in many cases you did not actually increase the ultimate cornering capabilities of your car. Modifying for “feel” may be very different than modifying for “go”. My message is – the “stock” car does not offer incredibly fun feel, but do not let this fool you that the setup is slow…. It is not at all. If you are very fast on the street on a Shine 225/200, it is not entirely because of that combo, it is because of you! The flatter feel gives more confidence and you dare more, but this does not mean the “stock” car is slow. People often say things like “I use to go through there at 30 and now with Shine I am at 50”…. Well, learn your car better, gain some confidence, approach it differently and you will be at 50 with the “stock” car too. The total difference in road holding between a Shine 225/200 and the current setup I have is not a lot, but guess few will believe me. The “character” is different and they have to be driven differently as to get them going fast, but the ultimate results are not far. I can see how the stiffer setup will excel in more aggressive conditions (read competition in an autocross event) but for aggressive street use both are actually more than what we should do on the streets anyway…….. 
Actually, a lot of this had been said all over and over again. This particular thread has it really all regarding street use and “GT” setups. I guess I have nothing constructive to add. Whatever I said is nothing new, but I just felt like giving it a write-up……. Personally, as per my best knowledge today, I think the stock Sport Package with good dampers and good tires is probably the closes what we tried to achieve as a “GT” setup. Many may think it is too little, but comfort levels that offers are excellent and that is big plus for those who spend a lot of time cruising around on not-so-good-roads. It feels sporty and it behaves sporty, but it is not a sport car…... Basically just replace the dampers and the tires of your GTI and you get a real “GTI”. As someone said before “The car should have come this way from the factory”…… I totally agree. It may all sound too confusion, but had to interrupt this post several times today and it is never the same when you come back and continue writing and then interrupt again, but this is the best I could do


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Back to "stock" .... (pyce)*

First http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
As I read it now there is a need to start a new thread on 
Best "GT" tire for the "real streets"???
Also I take it by upgrading the struts your vote is Koni?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Back to "stock" .... (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_ As I read it now there is a need to start a new thread on Best "GT" tire for the "real streets"???

I guess Eric at Tirerack can help us there a lot, but it i snot easy to get him involved in deep conversation... at least I never had the luck or I just do not know how....

_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_ Also I take it by upgrading the struts your vote is Koni?
 
There are many choices out there. Koni Yellow replaced Bilstein Sport on my car and for the use I do, the Koni are better for me. I am absolutely sure there are much much better choices. These are relatively cheap, off the shelf dampers and some work is needed to make them do something better that others. It is really not so easy to tweak them as you have ot remove the rears and you get tired after 20-30 times, especially if the results do not come. The good part is that they do work very well on good set of springs (such as the stocks springs) and I guess they would do well with almost any good selection of front and rear rates. If you had to chose between comfort and performance, then would have been difficult call. I mean, if Koni meant comfort and Bilstein mean performance, then I would understand the debate, but from my experience (and this is pure street, mind you) the Koni Yellow give more options for tweaking and are more comfortable if comfort is needed. It is really personal, everyone has his own point of view. I wrote mine


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Back to "stock" .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ It is really personal, everyone has his own point of view. I wrote mine









I hear ya.
On my A2 Ive tried Bilstien HDs with stock springs but Im really liking the "raised" SRS setup I now hwve - it would be a ton better when its aligned tho


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Long Term Experiments with Tires.....*

More experiments with tires….. This is about the “long term” experiments I was talking about on the previous page, but did not have time to put them in…
Well, basically this one concerns more the wheels. Many do upgrade wheels and usually the aftermarket wheels are slightly wider than the VW OE ones. For example, some of our VW come with OE 16 x 6.5 wheels. When people upgrade to 16”, they do not usually pay attention to whether the wheel is 6.5 or 7 inch wide. Some racers would say “The Wider The Better” as it “opens” the tire little bit more, this way the side wall is more on the vertical side, so it helps wall flex as it now works (the wall) more perpendicularly to the road, this way resisting more to flex. It makes all sense, but how much really it is the difference…. Well, for the last month I have been swapping same tires over different rims. Going from 6.5” wide rim to 7” with the same exact tire feels little bit better, like the tire got slightly stiffer side wall. Can not really evaluate significant gain in handling, because I guess it has to be pushed really hard as to start making countable difference and we do not drive like maniacs on the streets….. But another very noticeable aspect was the reduced comfort with the 7” wide rim. It is quiet noticeably firmer on all kind of surfaces. It almost feels like if you were to upgrade from 16” to 16.5” rims. Not that I know what is it like on 16.5” rims as I have never even seen one like that, but I am using it as to describe a feel…. So, I was thinking, could it be that VW specifically uses 6.5” wide rim as to gain comfort? I mean, the tire looks just perfect on a 7” wide rim, so beside weight and offset and comfort, I do not see why would VW use 6.5” instead of 7” wide rims as OE?...... Regardless, I just found this to be quiet interesting to note as not many people (me included) would have thought that going wider would make that much of comfort difference….
But back to tires ….. for more than a month I have been also driving (half of the time) my car with Performance tires (Potenza S-03) in the front and Touring tires (Michelin Energy) on the rear. Same size tire (205-55-16) on 16x6.5 first and then on 16x7 later. This was more as to see what happens. As we know, our fronts do a lot more work that the rear, so I was thinking to give the front performance rubber and let the rear just be there for the ride. Many have suggested that mixing tires with different compound is not a good idea. I just wanted to find out why and what and most of all how the car goes in different situations. Well, to make it short, it is not big deal if the car is stock. It takes really a lot of effort (on the streets) to make the rear lose with this tire combination. Even the powerful Potenza in the front can not compensate for the somehow “dead” rear. The so called “problem” is (as pointed in other threads before) that both tires do get “hot” differently, after different amount of time and for different amount of push. When driving on twisty roads, the first curve or two you may not notice huge difference, but after 10-15 curves the front heats pretty well and the Potenzas grip much better when hot, while the rear seems that nothing really happened, so this difference has to be taken seriously and that is precisely what makes this combination not-so-great idea, because there is certain amount of constant unpredictability, that after all makes the driver not 100% confident. Also, I guess even bigger problem would arise when driven on wet surfaces (it never rained even once since I started this, so can’t tell, but it is prediction). The front S-03 would definitely outperform the rear Touring tire in the wet and even if the water that remains there for the rears had been taken away already from the fronts, it may still not be enough. Even worse, when going through tight corners, the rear does no longer follow the front, and then is also where you need more grip than ever, so I guess all this is a big no-no…… But was fun when same combo was on the Shine 225/200. Then is was “forced” oversteering on almost every curve at 90 degree in the city. With stiffer rear spring and S-03 in the front, the rear could be made to step out almost any time you want, and did not even need to go fast for that. All needed was the turn to be sharp and you to “throw” the front in there. If you lift the throttle after the apex of the 90 degree turn, the trick comes even better







I can only imagine what could have been with holly-molly shine thick rear bar…… Anyway, fun but bad if we talk safety, predictability, etc….
What could really work nice is to use (as suggested in another topic) staggered tires. This way the tires are the same compound (or similar if different brands used, but same performance category) and would heat and cool and grip in similar way, but we could benefit form the “more tire” on the front, where we really need it, and leave the rear with “less tire” as it really does not do much on a car with no additional sway bar. In fact I just ordered two new tires (225-50-16) for the front to go with the 205-55-16 on the rear, so we can explore little bit more on this. It may look weird, but I really do not care


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Long Term Experiments with Tires..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_In fact I just ordered two new tires (225-50-16) for the front to go with the 205-55-16 on the rear, so we can explore little bit more on this. It may look weird, but I really do not care










Alright, so I had this great post about be careful with your ASR and ABS. Then I botherred to convert the rolling diameters only to find they're the same down to atleast a tenth of an inch. I should've known you'd thought of that.
I imagine the only advantage to this setup over adding rear bar is that you're trying to retain the comfort of the no-bar setup.


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Shock settings and cornering ability*

I remember a lot of the setups that were tried ended up with the front shocks set fairly high, and at least in one place it was suggested to reduce the front shock firmness to reduce understeer. I think it was also reported that on full soft, the cornering ability of the shine setup was atleast the same if not better than on stiffer settings. I may be wrong on some of these statements, but this is what I remember.
Why would reducing firmness increase grip?
The only reason I think this could happen is if the shocks absorb imperfections in the road better and allow the tire to make more consistent contact with the ground. Contrary to this I've found that softer shock settings allow the car to roll more, which as I understand reduces grip due to camber change.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Long Term Experiments with Tires..... (virtual_dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_Alright, so I had this great post about be careful with your ASR and ABS. Then I botherred to convert the rolling diameters only to find they're the same down to atleast a tenth of an inch. I should've known you'd thought of that.

Yes, that is the reason my choice was 225-50-16, because it is the only tire that has the exact same outer diameter and inner (wheel) diameter. Someone can go also with 225-45-17 front and 195-65-15 rears, but then those warnings for the ABS (I do not have ASR) kick in and anyway would have been really weird as you can't really find the same exact design for 15" and 17" wheels, and even if you find it, I guess no one is really THAT MUCH careless for looks when it comes to performance









_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_I imagine the only advantage to this setup over adding rear bar is that you're trying to retain the comfort of the no-bar setup.

Right on. The "stock" setup has a great comfort level, even on stiff wall S-03 and 40 PSI all around. I really like it very much and do not want to lose even a bit of it. I guess the rear bar would be more efficient way to tune the front, but I also know what such bar translates on my broken roads here. Also, do not forget that the "washers" do give a great "rear bar" touch (but also take away comfort when applied). Going with 225 front, my guess is that I can use one or two washers less in the rear, this way to have the "same" front grip, but also to gain "2-washers-less" comfort..... Well, we will find out soon. I may be wrong again


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*So what exactly has happened here?*

Hi Everybody(!)
Regular readers of this thread might be wondering why our discussion of possible aftermarket "GT" springs has (in Peter (Pyce)'s recent emails) suddenly taken a hard left turn into the glories of good tires on a stock suspension. Where, one might wonder, has the Shine Front gone? Why haven't we heard about Ceilidh's SofSport experiment? Why are we suddenly being told to stick with the stock springs?
Good questions. Here's the scoop:
Before the latest set of surprises, Peter was converting his car back to pseudo-stock (to recalibrate his ride/handling evaluation meter), while I (Ceilidh) was replacing my Shine "225" front spring with a set of SofSport VR6 springs (to try a 220 lb/in spring that would be somewhere between the stiff Shine 225 and the softer GTI spring that came stock on my car). As Peter had had great luck with the Shine Front setup on his Jetta TDI, and as I had an overall favorable experience, but with less improvement than Peter had found, the hope was that maybe my lighter GTI would benefit from the somewhat softer (compared with Shine 225) SofSport spring.
(Before going any further, by the way, I should mention that in doing these experiments, Peter and I had very kind cooperation both from Dick Shine (of Shine Racing Services) and from Greg Woo (of Neuspeed). Both proprietors went out of their way to help us, giving us lots of information that we couldn't have found otherwise, and both were quite patient with our trying out their products in ways they had not originally intended. So many thanks to both of these quality gentlemen for helping us learn the following!.....)
Anyway, although Peter and I were working on fairly separate projects on opposite coasts (Peter's in San Francisco; I'm in Boston), we wound up converging in a very unexpected way. Here Back East, I received the SofSport front springs (which are beautifully made, by the way), set them on the table next to my cleaned up stock GTI 1.8T springs (I could do so because the Shine 225's were holding up the car), and then drove down to Shine's shop to have them swapped in. Meanwhile, Out West, Peter looked into making his TDI a little more similar to my GTI, so that we could start from a common baseline, and hence he began to really research the stock spring rates. To help out in this effort, I made a little spreadsheet calculator for the stock spring rates (one can't just apply the standard spring rate formula as is, as the endcoils and spring seats make for complications), and we began plugging in the measured values Peter found. And that's when we began to be surprised:
Surprise #1: The SofSport front springs, when installed on my fairly light weight 2000 GTI 1.8T, give an initial spring rate very similar to that of my stock GTI spring. (This mild initial rate occurs because my car is too light to close up the dead coil at the base of the spring; once the car compresses the springs via roll, braking, or bumps, the coil closes up and the rate climbs to the stated range.) Hence the ride comfort with the SofSport fronts (I haven't installed the rears) is essentially that of the stock GTI springs.
Surprise #2: The stock, OEM springs display an enormous calculated range of stiffnesses, with my GTI 1.8T spring 33% stiffer than Peter's TDI spring, and a GTI VR6 spring a full 44% stiffer than TDI.
Surprise #3: In fact, when we calculate the VR6 spring rate, we come up with a figure that either matches or even exceeds (depending upon whose spring rate tester we want to use to calibrate our measurements) that of the SofSport-with-open-dead-coils.
The upshot is that when Peter installed the VR6 springs on his TDI, he transformed the handling (it's probably close to what I had to start with on my GTI). Whereas when I installed the front SofSports (leaving the stock rears in place), I wound up with handling that is nice, but not light-years beyond what I was used to from before (though I should stress that things would likely change dramatically if I put the rear springs on too).
Or to put things another way: the term "Stock" is a misnomer. The 33% spring rate difference between "stock" TDI and "stock" GTI (both cars of similar weights) is enormous, and the handling differences between these two "stock" cars is enormous as well. If you're starting from a non-GTI, non-Sport-Jetta, then you can really transform your car's handling by installing stiffer springs (be it via stiffer OEM springs, or SofSport, or Shine, or other aftermarket products). But if you're starting from a GTI or sport Jetta, your possible range of "improvement" is quite a bit lower.
It'll take time before we can sort through things and make them more systematic, so please bear with us. But the basic point right now is that if you're starting from a stock Golf or non-sport Jetta setup, you might want to take a good hard look at getting it up to GTI-level as a first step, as for many people, that might be quite good enough. Beyond that, the SofSport, Shine, and other packages offer a range of handling tweaks, which many people can be happy with -- but the stock GTI package (with Konis) is pretty sharp too.
More when we finally sort all this out -- take care, everyone!
- C


_Modified by Ceilidh at 11:55 PM 7-13-2004_


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Long Term Experiments with Tires..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_But was fun when same combo was on the Shine 225/200. Then is was “forced” oversteering on almost every curve at 90 degree in the city. With stiffer rear spring and S-03 in the front, the rear could be made to step out almost any time you want, and did not even need to go fast for that. All needed was the turn to be sharp and you to “throw” the front in there. If you lift the throttle after the apex of the 90 degree turn, the trick comes even better I can only imagine what could have been with holly-molly shine thick rear bar…… Anyway, fun but bad if we talk safety, predictability, etc….


What I LOVE about the Shine setup... but the DRIVER has to understand this - or be able to figure it out fast...
On a sidebar - what I hate about Repcos is the terrible cold stop bit - the stop shorter (I think) but scarier becuse the braking seems to take a split second to heat up and improve. This means ya WHOP on the pedal and HOLD it in..
Had a friend drive the 4Runner and fortuantly he's an ITB driver.. another SUV pulled out in front and then stopped. He got on the brakes and KEPT on em.. when we stopped inches from the other SUV's door (giving me a heart attack) he turned and smiled- "Repco's eh?"


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*The "stock" setup after several days.....*

It had been close to a week with this “stock” suspension (V6 Front, TDI Rear, Koni Yellow all around, no aftermarket bars, great tires and some washers) and there are several things I would like to say, but at the same time Winston did such a great write-up about this combo, that I rather quote him and enjoy one more time his written art…..

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ The handling of my car with Koni Yellows front and rear is (for me) fantastic -- but it is decidedly not the suspension for a great many of the people who post on the suspension forum (though it might be perfect for many of the people who just read along...) 

This is the first very important point! The user to understand (or to try to understand) what is really that he/she wants from the car before any mods go in. We humans some time think “quantity” and upgrade just the dampers sounds like upgrading too little as it is only “one item”, so we go the big walk and do “three or four items” (springs and dampers and sway bars) all at once, because then it sounds like a real upgrade…. But so many times going this way (throwing everything at once together) is not really the best way. It can be even a very wrong way as we do not know which part helped and which hurt. These things may not work for “you” in quantity and many times just the small, but right touch can do more than what ones needs…..

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ * The handling is essentially "what the car should have been like from the factory", in that the stock roll and heave are gone, the perceived understeer is far reduced, the real understeer on slow-speed city-type corners is so reduced as to be almost unnoticeable, the tires no longer squeal, and the steering precision and response have gone up immensely. Simply put, the car is now fun to drive in a way that the stock setup was not. 

Only a note here. As Winston pointed in his last post above, unfortunately we all do not start with the same “stock” setup. A Golf TDI/2.0L: GL will not get the same results as a Golf GTI is just the dampers are replaced in both. The factory sport suspension (in the springs and anti-roll bars) gives significant edge to the otherwise same car…..

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ * That being said, the handling is not even remotely "race car like", and the overall cornering limits are quite low. I would call it a "nice", "fun", "forgiving" set up, and it is "sporty" only in the original 1950's definition of "sportscar" in that it offers the driver a lot of feedback and flexibility, all while being extremely forgiving. It responds to classic cornering technique, and offers a lot of feel, and on 195/65-15 touring tires it gives a driver plenty of feedback on how well he's set up for and executed a corner -- but it is not going to blow the doors off any "tuned" car, and it is not going to satisfy anyone who equates "good handling" with razor-sharp steering, flat cornering, and the ability to dart back and forth (e.g., sudden lane changes) with abandon; plus it will give the driver no opportunity to tell heroic back-at-the-pub stories of hanging the tail out on trail brake/ lift throttle/ what have you maneuvers on real-men's mountain curves. It's nice, and fun, but it's no go-kart.

Very well put! Would like just to add that the whole scenario changes a LOT when (if) high performance tires are mounted. It changes the beast so completely, that different definition may need to apply later….

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ * The ride is *not* "better than stock"; nor is it worse. It's different, and different in ways that will be unacceptable to some while being extremely welcome to others. Those whose local roads have a lot of smooth-edged big bumps will think it rides better, whilst those who hit a lot of hard-edged ridges and cracks, or who drive on asphalt with many unseen small wavelets, are going to think back fondly on the original stock suspension.

Right on! As soon as the stock dampers are removed, the ride will never be the same…… but with the Koni Yellows and some patience, the sweet spot could be found. Winston did an excellent “guide” on different settings for the GTI on 15” all season tires. I am slowly following his guide as to try to narrow down faster (and easier) the settings for my car, with stronger V6 front spring and performance tires on 16” wheels. The results are very close to each other, so I guess his guide can be used for almost every stock + koni A4 platfrom on 15” or 16” tires.

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ Bottom line, this is the suspension for me, as I can practice my driving technique and have fun at sane, legal speeds. It is probably the right suspension for the vast majority of enthusiasts who simply want their cars to handle a bit better than stock -- but it will seem pretty underwhelming to those who first try (for a short test drive) a more highly tuned "performance" kit; *ironically it is a setup that will perhaps best be appreciated by those who have detoured into the more "serious" kits for a time before realizing that life (for many of us) should not be that serious.* But it's a "nice" suspension for a "nice" car.


















_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ …..I should clarify something I said in the initial installment: when I said that the stock suspension with Koni shocks was probably not the suspension for the majority of people posting on the suspension forum, I didn't mean to imply that it's not a great setup -- it's really very nice, and in truth a large percentage of the people on this forum would probably be best off with it. The problem is that, when compared to the "tuned" setups, it lacks pizzazz – *it's like the quietly pretty girl at the dance who eventually turns out to be incredibly fun to talk to, as opposed to the more spectacular bombshell that all the guys are trying to ask out.* That is, most people, when they get into suspensions for the first time, are dazzled by grip -- they like the cornering-on-rails feeling that goes with seemingly infinite grip, and they're impressed by a car's ability to make lightning lane changes & other sudden moves with an absolute minimum of fuss (I was the same way, once). To get these qualities, you go with wide sticky tires, stiffer springs, and a setup that holds the tires reasonably upright in a corner -- none of which the stock suspension has. What the stock suspension does have, however, when it's given some good damping, is a really nice interactive feel. It "handles" properly -- it responds to throttle, brake, and steering in a way that rewards good technique, and (most important to me) it can do so at fairly low speeds, so that driving around town is still fun; plus it can go surprisingly fast if treated the right way. That's why I think it's a setup that a lot of people would be more than happy with, long-term -- but it doesn't corner "on rails"; you can feel the tires working and slipping (which again I find very rewarding), and as such it's not suited for those looking for the sensation of infinite grip.

May I joint the quiet duo talking in the corner?









_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_General Handling Crispness
A night and day difference here: even compared with what I remember of my GTI when new, the car on tuned Konis is far more responsive to the steering wheel, much tidier and flatter on quick transitions, and more communicative on what the tires are doing. The transformation is pretty dramatic -- if part of your handling enjoyment is having a car that listens to control inputs, then it's hard to argue with Dick Shine's suggestion to modify the shocks first (we're ignoring tires here, of course).
This part of the handling equation is affected by shock adjustment, but the effect is broad and absolutely predictable. At full soft the crispness is better than stock, but there's still a noticeable amount of roll (and a hint of sloppiness on my GTI (non-Golf 2.0) springs & bars). At full stiff there's not much slop at all, and my tires become the limiting factor for general feel and precision. Damper adjustments of 1/2 turn increments make a noticeable difference in the crispness, with the effect more obvious on the soft end of the range than towards the top (i.e., 0 to 1/2 turn is more discernible than 1 to 1.5 turns). The adjustment for good handling seems to be a little stiffer than that for the best ride: were I not concerned about ride at all, I would probably have the fronts at 3/4 (270 degree) or 1 turn (360 degree) rather than the 108 degrees I've settled with, and I'd probably try moving the rears up proportionately.
Unlike Peter with his stiffer Shine front springs, I began to see some downsides when I moved the front adjustments beyond about 1 turn (360 degrees). With really stiff shock settings (on a soft stock spring), things began to feel a little "dead" -- whereas at lower settings the car had a nice "danceable" feeling (to use f1forkVR6's phrase), at stiff settings there was an inertness that, while very stiff, crisp and tidy, was simply less fun. When coupled with the ride tradeoffs that come with over-firm damping (plus the tires seemed to cope less well with maintaining traction over patchy bumps), this trait made the super-stiff settings less than desirable 

Right on! I also found that the car is not the best (for comfort) at full soft….. I wonder if we can use the results (of where we are on the rebound settings) with different springs as to evaluate how properly the spring ratio (front to rear) is matched.? I mean, on stronger Shine front the overall best result was between 50% and 75% (even if interesting things were found on 0%, but I can see how some can get sea-sick, so let’s forget it as possibility) and the rear was at 20-30% to match it…..Now, with softer front, so far the best (for me) is 25% front and 25% rear…… So, could it be that similar results front to rear (like the 25-25) means that front to rear springs are a good match for ratio between them?
.....Can not pos tmore than 20.000 charachters, so small interruption here..... Continues below.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The "stock" setup after several days.....*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Turn-in
Again as expected -- but expected in that it agrees with what Carroll Smith writes (e.g., "Drive to Win", CSC, Palos Verdes CA, 1996), not with what the tuner mags say:
In simple theory, increasing front damping might be expected to degrade turn-in at corner entry, as it increases the lateral weight transfer at the front (which should reduce overall front traction). In practice, however, the turn-in improved markedly the moment I replaced the stock fronts with the Konis, and moving up on the front adjustments seemed to improve it still further (though once again, there came a point (around 1 turn (360 degrees) on my car) where the improvement began to tail off). If I interpret C. Smith correctly, what seems to be happening is that the stock car "falls over onto the outside tire" on corner entry, causing the front end to initially wash out, and the stiffer shocks improve turn-in response by keeping the car more upright at the moment the wheel is cranked over. Regardless, the car is much more decisive on corner entry now.

This could be an explanation of my the front Shine was giving great turn-in results on full soft…. The thing is that spring is so stiff, the wash out you are talking about may have no occurred, but the general traction could have been better because the spring has more “freedom” (due to the lower rebound) to push to tire (specially the inner!) to the ground, resulting in somehow more grip. But it is a wild guess….

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Over-steer on Corner Entry
One of the minor sadnesses (in fact, the only mild regret) from switching front stock fronts to Konis all-around was that I lost the corner entry oversteer that was so fun with 1/2-turn rear Konis and worn stock front shocks. With Konis all-around, the initial turn-in was very crisp, but it wasn't followed by the little rear sidestep that was so fun with the mismatched shocks. Instead, after the crisp initial turn-in, the car just proceeds smoothly into the corner. As the little sidestep was really more of a handling fault (albeit an endearing one) that has now been corrected, I can't complain about its loss, but I mention it for the autocrossers who care so much about "rotation" in slow corners: if you want to invoke rotation with damper settings on your Konis, you'll probably have to use a pretty big mismatch front to rear (e.g., something like full-stiff Rear, half-stiff Front). At the moment I'm on 1/2 turn (180 degrees, about 1/4 stiff) on the rear, and I can't invoke the sidestep even on full-soft Front, so if the sidestep/rotation is possible, it'll be on stiffer rear settings.

You put some “washers” in the rear and you will not miss your front stock dampers again










_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Reduction in Roll
Ok, here we start getting into the less-expected things. This first one is something I noticed when I first installed the rear Konis (with stock fronts), but it seemed so bizarre that I thought I was imagining things or misremembering what the full stock car was like. But then Peter reported the same observation when he began playing with shock adjustments on his half-Shine car. And so when I put in the front Konis and started adjusting them, I paid special attention to the phenomenon, and here I've seen it again:
*With improved damping, either the car rolls less in corners, or else there's some psychological effect that's so strong it's simply amazing.*
Part of this (perceived?) behaviour is entirely logical and expected: for one thing, it's not always in effect. On fast, highway-style curves, the car rolls the same amount as before, only the stability is much higher as the chassis is not floating and heaving, or bouncing around because of bumps. Conversely, on the sharpest, slowest city-street style corners, where the car never really hits steady state (it rolls and rolls on its way into the corner, and then flattens and flattens on its way back out), then you'd expect the Konis to reduce the peak roll and the speed of roll-increase, and here the car naturally rolls less. All that makes sense.
The part that makes me think I'm imagining things is what happens on the medium corners -- the ones where there's a definite turn-in phase, but where the corner is long enough for the car to take a set (i.e., to hit steady state) before corner exit. On these corners, the car simply feels like it rolls less -- a lot less -- than before, and increasing the damping flattens the roll out still further.
As this observation would seem to be impossible (once the car hits steady state, the dampers don't really affect roll anymore), I can only think of three possible ways of explaining it, and none of the explanations is terribly convincing even to me. But for what it's worth:
A) Perhaps, because the rate of roll-increase (how rapidly the car leans over to one side) is extremely reduced by the stiffer shocks, the human brain is tricked into thinking the absolute amount of roll is far less than before. Psychologically this is plausible, as a lot of our senses are calibrated to equate suddenness with magnitude (e.g., a sudden loud noise will seem louder than an equally loud noise that ramps up more gradually). Thus perhaps because the Koni-shod car eases into its steady state roll relatively gradually, it feels like the car rides flatter.
I would be happy with this proposition were it not for the fact that my Koni-shod car, besides feeling flatter, also understeers much less than it did with stock shocks. In particular, that troublesome 35 mph corner near my parents' house -- where the stock car would tilt onto its door handles and plow straight forward with scrubbing understeer -- is now comfortably negotiable with very little drama. Also, some of the medium corners have a pretty long steady state section, and if this is a psychological phenomenon, it's a very good psychological phenomenon -- the car really feels more upright, even on these long medium sections.
B) A second possibility is that because turn-in is so much improved, and general handling precision is so enhanced, perhaps I can place the car into a slow or medium corner much more accurately now, and thereby am turning more of the corner into a smooth arc (as opposed to a messy entry followed by a sharp hooking turn). In this scenario the car rolls less because the corner arc is smoother and longer, and the peak g-forces are consequently less at any given speed. I can sort of believe this one too, even though it doesn't say very complimentary things about my ability to pick a cornering line and to compensate for the faults of my machinery. But then again, on some of the medium curves, there's not much choice in cornering line: the road just goes where it goes....
C) The final possibility I can think of is that the stock car, besides rolling much more quickly, actually rolls to an absolutely greater extent for a while because it "overshoots" -- i.e., the momentum of the rolling motion takes the car farther over than the g-forces require, and some time must be spent for it to roll back. Since the Koni-equipped car rolls so much more slowly, there's less overshoot (or none at all, at the higher settings), and the peak roll is less than before. So maybe that's why it feels like it rolls so much less.
Probably the explanation lies in some combination of A + B + C. In any case, whether the sensation is real or psychological, it's strong enough that for those drivers who basically like the stock suspension but wish to reduce the apparent roll (in slow and medium corners), the stiffer shocks might just do the trick without recourse to stiffer springs or bars.

I had and still have no answer for this one, but can confirm that the “effect” is absolutely there, with no matter which spring combination is used…..


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Reduction in Understeer
Take the preceding section, substitute the word "understeer" in place of roll, and you have the next surprising observation. I won't go into it, as the understeer sensations are very similar to those for roll, save to stress that:
1) The (apparent? real?) reduction in understeer is extremely evident and welcome on the slower corners; the effect disappears on the fast curves, and is medium on the medium curves.
2) In terms of calibration: on my car, Rear settings of 0 (full soft) or of 1/4 turn (90 degrees) left more understeer than I liked, which is why I went to 1/2 turn (180 degrees) on the rear. I don't really know what will happen at 3/8 turn (135 degrees -- my hypothetical ideal setting, along with 1/4 turn (90 degree) fronts), but I'm hoping the understeer doesn't return.
A surprising characteristic at my current settings is that on a hard slow or medium corner, I can feel both the front and the rear tires start to sideslip. The car is not really neutral (at that moment it's still pretty forgiving and docile), but the sensation is reminiscent of a neutral car beginning to drift. It's really very fun, and is one of the things that makes the stock suspension enjoyable at sane speeds.

Similar “drift” can be had with proper rebound setting front to rear (close to each other) but with performance tires front and econo tires rear…… but the turn had to be very hard and very “slow” type of turn. The mismatch of tire compound not to be confused with “tuning” a car thought!.....

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Response to Throttle
Here's the last finding, and the one that was least suspected but most welcome. To explain it, I'll need a quick digression:
Those who have driven old European RWD sedans with skinny tires and moderate power (sounds awful, doesn't it? - But probably f1forkvr6 will know where I'm headed!) can vouch that one of their most endearing characteristics was how they behaved as you rolled onto the throttle in a corner. To drive many of these cars, you had to do most of your braking on the straight, ease smoothly into the corner with a very truncated period of trail braking (people used to argue whether trail braking was even desirable at all), and then ease onto the throttle well before the apex. Generally things felt borderline awful in the moments before you got on the gas, but putting on the power would stabilize everything. And then -- and here's the key part -- as you fed in more power, the front would seem to lock onto the tarmac, the rear would begin to steer the car without overtly sliding or skidding, and you would rocket past the apex and towards the exit with a lively-yet-glued-to-the-road feeling that can best be described as "dancing". Really sweet.
And so, the big surprise of the stock GTI with Konis is that, once the Konis are dialed in, that RWD feeling is actually present in moderate corners (in a very subdued, subtle form, but it's there). Go too hard into a corner or nail the throttle hard like a hooligan, and it'll of course understeer (it's still a FWD car, and if you overload the fronts with engine power, they won't have much traction left for turning), but when you're just tooling along at 5/10 or so, rolling onto the power before the apex will actually tuck the nose in slightly and rocket the car through the corner with that sweet, dancing sensation. Basically, you get a little of the flavour of a 60's Euro RWD sedan, which is kind of nice.
This one I don't have any qualms about reporting. It's all a sham, of course: The 60's RWD cars felt this way because they had traction-free skinny tires that ran at enormous slip angles, and the sensation came about because the RWD power would begin eating up most of the rear traction reserves. When you got to this point, you were starting to flirt with the edge. In contrast, the GTI feels this way when it's nowhere near its cornering or traction limits (at those limits, power leads to understeer), and it's done with clever control of suspension geometry. But I'm pretty sure it's intentional. One of my old textbooks (from the 80s, I think) describes how it's done on a small FWD hatchback, but until now I've never actually felt it on a real FWD car. I also never felt it on my GTI when it was new (perhaps because the stock shocks allow too much floating and bouncing for the sensation to emerge), but it's a real plus with the Konis -- I can enjoy the sensation and work on my RWD "technique" while sedately driving behind minivans.

Dancing as …. Ceilildh Dances?









_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_Handling Sum Up
In my initial Koni installment, I stated that I loved the handling of my car on stock springs and Konis, that it's a set up that would suit many people, but that it also lacks pizzazz when compared with less-mild kits. Hopefully the above will have made those statements clearer.
A stock suspension with Konis will not have lightning reflexes; it will not have higher cornering limits than stock; it will not allow you to put great gobs of horsepower down onto the road or race/autocross track; and it will not give a rock-solid feeling that you can do anything you want.
But on the other hand, it will roll much less than stock (or at least it will seem to); it will understeer much less than stock (ditto); it will handle more crisply, turn in more emphatically, and stay more stable over bumps; and it will give you feedback and signals that can allow you to have fun with classical race car / 60's Euro sport/sedan techniques at moderate speeds, all while retaining plentiful modern traction reserves to get you out of trouble if something unexpected comes up. Is it the best handling car out there? No. Is it a good setup for those who push to the real limits of their cars? Not really. But for those who wish to enjoy the feel of decent handling at moderate speeds, and who want to have fun while keeping lots of traction & handling reserves for unexpected emergencies or surprises, mounting Konis on a stock suspension is a really good modification to try first, before anything else.
Cheers everybody!
-	Ceilidh

I could have never even dream of being able to describe the Stock car with Koni in the superb, outstanding way you did! Kudos to you, Winston, for the time, the effort, the dedication, the capabilities and talent in not only being able to make all the tests, but in being able also to describe everything after that in such an amazing way! Thank you very much!


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: The "stock" setup after several days..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Over-steer on Corner Entry
One of the minor sadnesses (in fact, the only mild regret) from switching front stock fronts to Konis all-around was that I lost the corner entry oversteer that was so fun with 1/2-turn rear Konis and worn stock front shocks. With Konis all-around, the initial turn-in was very crisp, but it wasn't followed by the little rear sidestep that was so fun with the mismatched shocks. Instead, after the crisp initial turn-in, the car just proceeds smoothly into the corner. As the little sidestep was really more of a handling fault (albeit an endearing one) that has now been corrected, I can't complain about its loss, but I mention it for the autocrossers who care so much about "rotation" in slow corners: if you want to invoke rotation with damper settings on your Konis, you'll probably have to use a pretty big mismatch front to rear (e.g., something like full-stiff Rear, half-stiff Front). At the moment I'm on 1/2 turn (180 degrees, about 1/4 stiff) on the rear, and I can't invoke the sidestep even on full-soft Front, so if the sidestep/rotation is possible, it'll be on stiffer rear settings.



_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_You put some “washers” in the rear and you will not miss your front stock dampers again









This might be where tuning with a rear bar comes in to the picture...


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: The "stock" setup after several days..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
This could be an explanation of my the front Shine was giving great turn-in results on full soft…. The thing is that spring is so stiff, the wash out you are talking about may have no occurred, but the general traction could have been better because the spring has more “freedom” (due to the lower rebound) to push to tire (specially the inner!) to the ground, resulting in somehow more grip. But it is a wild guess….


Not that wild a guess at all. That is EXACTLY what a well tuned suspension is supposed to do - return the contact patch to the ground as quickly, and as efficiently as is possible







. Too much rebound can compromise handling in quick transitions, and on less than perfect surfaces - this is where the high pressure mono-tube dampers (Bilstein, et al) shine .... so to speak








This phenomenon is probably why my experience with the Shine suspension has been so favorable ... Dick has stated that the MKIII version of the RSS is probably his most sorted version - the B4 version of the RSS is very much the same, with slightly higher rear spring rates (250 vs. 200). The ride is smooth, controlled and very efficient in it's movements.
Winston - I am sometimes in Cambridge, and could meet you for a lunchtime drive ... then you could verify if I'm completely off my rocker regarding the livability of the Shine RSS on my B4, or if I'm just different in my daily needs and likes. Additionally, if you ever want to make the trip north to Portsmouth, we could do lunch and go for a drive.


_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 10:24 PM 7-14-2004_


----------



## go5ogo (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: So what exactly has happened here? (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
Surprise #2: The stock, OEM springs display an enormous calculated range of stiffnesses, with my GTI 1.8T spring 33% stiffer than Peter's TDI spring, and a GTI VR6 spring a full 44% stiffer than TDI.



Thank you for pointing this out! I started to get a little confused with Peter recommending the stock springs. The reason being, is that I have a 2001 Golf 1.8T, that does not have the sport suspension. It leans so hard in the corners that sometimes I feel I need to install outriggers to keep my door handles from scrapping







Now it makes a little more sense.
I was looking at full shine before all this started, now I think I may start with VR6 GTI springs and Koni's and go from there.
I have been following this thread from the beginning and I am very thankful for all the effort that has been put forth to help others. It is all very much appreciated.
Tony


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: The "stock" setup after several days..... (f1forkvr6)*

Chris, this is a great idea! I so much hope that you two can meet and he can experience your car, even if I am sure a Shined B4 is not exactly like a Shined A4. But it will be great if you guys can ride in your car on his streets, the crappy part (of those streets) that he has issues with. Man, I wish you all were not 3.000 miles away.....
go5ogo - I am trying to always point that the front springs are not exactly the stock springs that my car came with, but you may have missed it. That is the reason I put it in brackets ("stock") almost all the time, so it reminds us that it is not really stock as intended by the factory. that is also the reason we started to explore in depth the stock springs and moved it to a thread on it's own. Here it is:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1464067
p.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: The "stock" setup after several days..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_

Dancing as …. Ceilildh Dances?











1) Congrats, Peter! You're the first person to figure out the origin of my "name"! Have you spent much time in Ireland?








2) Chris, it'd be great to meet up sometime and go for a drive!
3) Tony, regarding front GTI VR6 springs on a non-sport GLS 1.8t: your should also know there's some uncertainty over the rear springs that we haven't quite sorted out. The rear springs don't seem to change that much between cars, but then again my GTI sits 1/2" or so lower at the back than do the "normal" Golfs on my street. If the GTI springs are in fact a little lower and stiffer than normal Golf, then there's a 3 fold contribution there too: less roll (lowered CG with relatively fixed roll center); higher rear rate; and earlier contact with bump rubbers in roll. All of these factors would sharpen the handling. But unfortunately, we really don't know much about the rear springs quite yet....
Cheers! - C

_Modified by Ceilidh at 2:41 PM 7-15-2004_


_Modified by Ceilidh at 2:44 PM 7-15-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Washers for Everybody! *

“An Anti-Roll Device at it’s finest!”
Guys, if you remember few pages ago we were talking about how to use “washers” to snap on the damper’s shaft in between the rear bump-stops and the top of the damper’s body, as to reduce roll in curves. Since those renderings were shown on that post, I have been driving around with some sort of hand made washers from parts collected from here and there, just to be able to evaluate how effective this can be. Well, the results are really outstanding so far. It really acts like there is a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. The roll can be controlled extremely well with the different combinations between washers and pieces of the bump-stops. It can be set to a point where there is no gap and the remaining of the buffers (the very top much stronger part) is directly sitting on several washers and that one is like and extremely stiff springs all together…….
Anyway, I went ahead and actually designed the “washer”, giving it proper dimensions and thickness, so it can “snap-on” very easy on the shaft and then it can be taken out very easy too. At the same time, the tolerances are close enough so the washer remains where it is under full load (read: very long heavy curve to the point where the rear steps out). Then with the help of a CNC machine, managed to cut several identical to each other washers. Here is a picture of how all looks like now:








1. View of the ½“ thick washers. The Koni’s shaft diameter is about 12.05 mm, so the narrowest part of the washers was cut at 11.90 mm, this way the “snap” is perfect! 
2. One of the “extreme” settings is with 7 washers and the buffer cut till it strongest part near the top. This setting is outstanding in curve and still very forgiving on ordinary higway. The impact on comfort is like if you dial the rear Konis on another 10% rebound.
3. The best way to evaluate the “washers” effect is to leave the other side as it is from the factory. Here you can see all the slices from my old buffer, stack on top of each other not in the order they came out, but it does not matter. 
The car behaves exactly like there were a real rear anti-roll bar in there! It would be really nice if some of you decide to just try this and see for yourself. The best part is that you can take them out any time you want and fine tune as to achieve the effect of light bar, medium bar or heavy bar in the rear. It is the cheapest and most effective radical transformation I ever had on my ride. The kicker is, it can be tested with left side on soft and the right on stiff, so the driver can experience the difference in real time, turning left and right. This way it is extremely easy to evaluate what these washers really add to the car’s dynamics in curve. You guys have to try this!


----------



## leftme2002 (Mar 28, 2004)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_“An Anti-Roll Device at it’s finest!”

Great idea and a great thread. Why hasen't anyone thought of these spacers before?
Are you going to share the CAD drawing or the CNC machine code or do we have to design the spacers ourselves? What material are the spacers made from? I have a CNC machine at work and I might give this a try to get a little more oversteer on my MK3.
Or better yet sell a bag of 10 or so spacers to people for $50. Really cheap rear sway bar.
Clayton


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (leftme2002)*



leftme2002Or better yet sell a bag of 10 or so spacers to people for $50. Really cheap rear sway bar.
Clayton[/QUOTE said:


> These will behave like stiffer springs, rather than a rear sway bar. The sway-bar has lateral, and opposite corner weight transfer dynamics that this mod doesn't have.
> GREAT design Peter ... another marketable idea? Get those patents quick.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_These will behave like stiffer springs, rather than a rear sway bar. The sway-bar has lateral, and opposite corner weight transfer dynamics that this mod doesn't have.

Chris, I do understand what you are saying, but the driving experience is really like with anti-roll bar. It eliminates the leaning as you build with the washers and it really pushes down the front inner tire. Lunch time we were doing slalom in our huge parking lot, just wanted to show my colleagues, and they can witness how on the left curves the car actually drifts on all four wheels, with the rear really stepping out with even the slightest lift throttle! The right curves are with no buffers at all (on the left rear side) and it is severe lean and front outer tire squeal...... Actually, I told my guy to run the machine the whole day and he made several sets, so I will send to few people to try and they be the judges. But seriously, the car behaves exactly like a car with rear anti-roll bar. Have been driving it like this for some time and every time add more washers, also had to "adjust" the steering input (to less steering) as the slip angles of the front tires are noticeably reduced. I even keep a post-it on the steering wheel that reminds me what setting do I have at every moment, so I do not get confused (can't keep it always in mind) and overdo the car while it is in "lesser" configuration...... just makes me feel safer this way.

_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_ another marketable idea? Get those patents quick.

I actually decided to go ahead and register it few days ago..... does not cost much, but hey, what the hack, some people may like it and it is so cheap anyway. It is tricky to "patent" a washer (LOL) but I got some very talented friends-lawyers and believe it or not, it can be done if some unknown to me words are used


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
I actually decided to go ahead and register it few days ago..... does not cost much, but hey, what the hack, some people may like it and it is so cheap anyway. It is tricky to "patent" a washer (LOL) but I got some very talented friends-lawyers and believe it or not, it can be done if some unknown to me words are used









Nice!
It may feel like what adding a rear sway bar felt like with softer springs, and it will certainly control more of the body roll at the rear of the car, but the rear corners are not tied together as they would be with a rear bar. I'd argue you'd feel the same improvements just by adding stiffer springs (in essence exactly what you've done







). A rear sway bar transfers lateral loads more quickly than stiffer springs do - this is the main difference between the two methods of increasing wheel rate while cornering, and the different dynamics that the chassis will exhibit when encountering a bump mid-corner.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_ I'd argue you'd feel the same improvements just by adding stiffer springs (in essence exactly what you've done







). A rear sway bar transfers lateral loads more quickly than stiffer springs do - this is the main difference between the two methods of increasing wheel rate while cornering, and the different dynamics that the chassis will exhibit when encountering a bump mid-corner.

Chris, absolutely! All this does is really adding a quick and very progressive spring rate. no arguing here, I fully agree with all you are saying!....... The thing is, as you said as well, the reason we put anti-roll bar in there is to achieve some reduction in roll without going to stiffer springs as they will reduce comfort more than the bar with softer springs..... So, this way we have soft springs for nice ride and added spring effect in curve when we need it, right? This thing does more or less the same, it is pretty comfy on crap roads and as soon as you turn the wheel, it sits on the washers and hangs in there amazingly well. Now, you have point that the inner rear wheel is planted on the road and that does less than if the wheel was lifted and therefore more of the car's (inner rear) weight would help to "push" even more the inner front wheel to the ground...... But at the same time, we have a small advantage to keep the inner rear wheel on the ground, it is still some added grip to the other three wheels that are working harder, so I guess the overall grip could be higher..... but then you would say that corner exit (acceleration) could be slightly more compromised with he rear not in the air (therefore less weight on the front inner)..... Well, nothing is perfect and I am far from claiming that this is really the ultimate nirvana, but what costs and for the ease to use it, it is not bad. A soft azz like me likes it because tonight on the crappy highway going home, I will remove 2-3 of them and will have Cadillac ride home and tomorrow when my sensitive azz is well rested, I can snap them back and have fun







....... At least we are playing here and having fun. I have enjoyed all these experiments through this topic so much and learned so much and am so happy that you all guys participated and took al this so seriously, so we all came long way and put a very niece solid base for more knowledge on top of it in the future. Thumbs up everybody for going already 27 pages of pure suspension fun! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## WI-TDI-Fan (May 4, 2004)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*

Well, I've been following this since the beginning.
Earlier I had the grandios plan of testing the multitude of variations, including 17" tires/wheels. Basically, the school of hard knocks. That perspective changed over the last week or so.
As luck would have it, I had a chance to drive a Shined Jetta, with Koni's, AND a Jetta w/VR6 springs and Koni's - not side by side, but within a few hours of each other. Talk about dumb luck. My vote goes to the VR6 Spring/Koni combo.
Like Peter, I have a daily commute on less the perfect roads. At the same time, my job requires a fair amount of travel over still more, less than perfect roads and city streets. And again, like Peter, my azz (tired or rested) detected a noticable difference between the two setups.
Having said that, I located a set of VR6 springs (2 blue / 2 white) and will be going that route. At the same time, one of the readers here and I have come to terms on the Shine 2225/200s I acquired earlier. In the end, I think we will both be happy.
Now, neither my Millrite vertical mill or Clausing lathe have the precison or CNC capabilities that Peter's resources do. Any attempt I might make to fabricate similar washers would pale by compairon. So IF by chance a few of the fancy - yet to be patented - spacers that Peter mentions happened across my way, I'd really be a happy camper and could be used as a second opinion to Peter's findings


----------



## go5ogo (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*

Peter,
Am I missing something with the washers . . . is this not similar to a lowered car? From what I am understanding the washers are limiting the travel similar to a lowered car riding close to the bump stops? If I am reading everything correctly, this is what gives the car a flat feel b/c the washers stop the lean. Are you faster through the coners with the washers or without? (I tried to see if this was covered previously, but got lost in the pages as it is a lot to scan in a short time.) 
I understand that it is inexpensive and is very adjustable, but my simple mind (very new to trying to understand suspension) is having trouble understanding why limiting the suspensions travel is a good thing.
thanks,
Tony


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (WI-TDI-Fan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WI-TDI-Fan* »_...... I located a set of VR6 springs (2 blue / 2 white) and will be going that route...... 

2 blue 2 White ....... OOOOOOooooooooo!!!! That is one of the strongest stock front springs that I tried to locate so much, but guess you were the lucky one! Now, THAT will be one great setup for daily driver! You may even keep the 17"







Maybe I should say "Congratulations"! You see, it was crucial for you to test them both and see what does it mean for YOU and only you! I am happy that you did not waste your money, time and effort and did a good for you choice! Let us know how it goes...... and if you ever decide to take out those 2 Blue 2 White, please call me first!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (go5ogo)*

Tony, in few words..... limiting the suspension travel simply means less roll. Less roll translates in more even distribution of load on all tires (This is all generally speaking, let's do not go in details now) It also keeps the geometry of the suspension around it's best, so the tires are more upright and therefore provide more contact patch with the road, so more grip, so faster speed in curves...... now, if you hit a bump in the mid corner, it becomes bad if you do not have any more suspension travel, but everything this far had been a compromise and it is always compromise. The ideal suspension, I am afraid, does not exist. So, with the washers we compromise travel to gain less roll. As you said, it is exactly the same when you lower the rear so much, so you sit on the buffers completely, and you have the same thing - less roll, stiff rear, better cornering overall. The washers can suit people who do not want to lower much, so they gain this effect with maintaining stock ride height. Or people who lower AND want even stiffer rear, so eliminate part of the softer buffer with stiffer washer. I hope I gave the right idea..... but pleas,e this all is very general answer, so do not jump on me if I was generalizing too much. For the details, there are the 27 pages so far


----------



## go5ogo (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*

Peter,
Thanks for the reply. I thought that was what the washers were doing, but just needed to clarify to make sure I was not totally losing my mind







. I went over your washer section again and it all makes sense as far as what the washers are doing. Do you have plans to try a rear bar on your current set up (shine or something a little less aggressive)?
Tony


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Nice!
.....A rear sway bar transfers lateral loads more quickly than stiffer springs do - this is the main difference between the two methods of increasing wheel rate while cornering, and the different dynamics that the chassis will exhibit when encountering a bump mid-corner.

Hi Chris,
Has it been as cool in Portsmouth this summer as it has been here in Beantown?








Anyway, I was wondering if you could please explain the speed of lateral load transfer a bit more fully -- sounds interesting, and it's not something I've come across before. Thank you!
- C (W)


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (Ceilidh)*

Yes Winston, quite a bit cooler than normal in Portsmouth (several degrees cooler on average) - and after a VERY cold winter








I can only offer intuitive reasoning regarding the speed of lateral transfer - perhaps there is a physics equation to describe this, but I don't have it. The springs will transfer lateral loading through the chassis _exclusively_, while a RSB will transfer a bunch of weight through the bar itself, in addition to the chassis.
When I had the RSS kit installed on my B4, they didn't have a rear bar at the time of the spring/damper installation. I drove the Shine springs (300/250) & Bilstein HDs for a few thousand miles, and then added the bar. HUGE difference at the limit - much more direct feeling, and quicker hands were required to keep the chassis "drifting" controlably. It felt like the entire rear end was a solid mechanism, rather than two separate corners. Quite a dramatic difference.



_Modified by f1forkvr6 at 12:27 AM 7-16-2004_


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (f1forkvr6)*

The interested people to try the washers - Please Read Below!
Few already contacted me asking me to try those washers...... Now, I want to put something in very clear, so we all keep the great friendly relationship we have here: I do not cut those washers by myself, have a guy with a shop and equipment to do so. I hope none here would expect me to go out and pay to cut 100 washers, pay for them, and then ship them to all of you to try on my wallet...... I am trying to be nice ot everyone, but please do not expect me to go and pay for everybody to have those...... so, here is what I can do at the moment. The guy can cut washers on order for everyone who wants them. He will charge 25$ for 10 washers, which I think are enough for one car. You pay the shipment, which should be very little via ordinary mail. Few bucks at max. He provides the material, he cuts, he packs, he sends to you. I have no time now and he does this for living, so I let him do it for now and for few of you who are involved in tihs thread. All I will do is coordinate with him so you all get your stiff in time and in perfect shape. That is the best I can do for now and hope you all find it fare.......


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*

Peter, thanks for putting this together for everyone, your knowledge and experience was enough and now you're even sending out products.
I know I'm not in the same league with my lowerred suspension (Neuspeed Sports), but I've been 'playing' with my konis to get them adjusted properly and trying to experience some of the effects that have been discussed here. I want to feel what you all have been describing so I'm on the same page. I have a few general questions maybe some of you can answer.
1) Why does reducing firmness lead to more front grip (i.e. less understeer)?
This was discussed in a couple places, but specifically I remember a setup with Neuspeed Sofsports that suggested reducing the koni adjustment to add more front grip. Also I think Peter reported that when he made the revelation of putting the konis on full soft with the SRS springs that the cornering speed was atleast as good as on stiffer settings, or possibly better.
I notice a drastic reduction in roll when adjusting from full soft to full stiff. However, this might just be the feeling I get from the initial turn of the steering wheel and both settings may rest at the same roll angle in a long curve. So, could the increase in grip be front more resilience in the front wheels which would maintain more consistent contact with bummpy roads?
2) What effect does rear firmness adjustment have on handling balance or conering ability?
There's not a lot of talk about adjusting the rears, I presume because they're more difficult to adjust, I haven't changed mine from 50% sinec I put them on. I'm wondering whether it's worth getting under there and adjusting to feel a difference.
I tried 0% front and 50% rear at first and the car wallowed from side to side in more slalom like turns. They I went to 100% front and 50% rear to feel the difference, which was much improved in turn in and overall fell, except on broken roads. Then I went to 50% front and 50% rear and I thought I had a reduction in understeer. But now I'm back to 100% front and 50% rear and I feel like there is another reduction in understeer. I'm now thouroughly confused. I guess I need to take a day to do some more analytical testing back to back.


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (virtual_dub)*

Poke around on this site for a while *Smithees Race Car Technologies* . It has some very good technical suspension setup articles.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_I know I'm not in the same league with my lowerred suspension (Neuspeed Sports), but I've been 'playing' with my konis to get them adjusted properly and trying to experience some of the effects that have been discussed here. I want to feel what you all have been describing so I'm on the same page….. 

Great! The best thing ever is to actually feel the difference and the effects on your beloved ride …. Reading on the internet can not replace the feel







I admire people who go out and try things, and specially when they come back and say that they got different results and that the rest are all wrong, etc….. Then there is great base for deeper discussion and a good base to move the bar higher and bring the common knowledge to the next level. 

_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_1) Why does reducing firmness lead to more front grip (i.e. less understeer)?

I tried to explain that to myself in an earlier post (after experiencing it on the full soft front Shine) and here is the quote:

_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_This could be an explanation of my the front Shine was giving great turn-in results on full soft…. The thing is that spring is so stiff, the wash out you are talking about may have no occurred, but the general traction could have been better because the spring has more “freedom” (due to the lower rebound) to push to tire (specially the inner!) to the ground, resulting in somehow more grip. But it is a wild guess..

Then Chris replied:

_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Not that wild a guess at all. That is EXACTLY what a well tuned suspension is supposed to do - return the contact patch to the ground as quickly, and as efficiently as is possible . Too much rebound can compromise handling in quick transitions, and on less than perfect surfaces - this is where the high pressure mono-tube dampers (Bilstein, et al) shine .... so to speak 

But of course, all this can change dramatically with the different type of surfaces the car is driven on. I think it is very, very important to always keep in mind that setting a car for smooth mountain road is very different than setting car for dirt road drive, etc. I do fully understand that everyone wants the best of both, but I really doubt it is possible. Not at least with few hundred dollars suspension upgrade….

_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_I notice a drastic reduction in roll when adjusting from full soft to full stiff. However, this might just be the feeling I get from the initial turn of the steering wheel and both settings may rest at the same roll angle in a long curve. So, could the increase in grip be front more resilience in the front wheels which would maintain more consistent contact with bummpy roads?

Yes, the toll on full stiff is much less, almost “killed” like. But the theory says that on a long, long curve at the end the dampers would extend anyway, so the ultimate roll would be the same….. The funny thing is, we both (with Winston) had an interesting feeling that when going to really high rebound, specially front, it really seems that the roll is reduced somehow, even after a long 270 degree curve. He tried to give few explanations and at the end could be a combinations of all of them together…. I do not know, but it is a feeling and it is there. Anyway, softer rebound ALWAYS gives better traction and road holding on bumpy roads, as so do softer springs……. But then the softer you go, the more you lean, roll, etc and you lose time in weight transfer, aka you are slower. And here it is the whole challenge, to find the “compromise” that suits you, on your car, with your driving techniques, and your driving needs. In few words, it all means that there is no “ideal suspension” that will fit everything in one. Again, not one that will cost few hundred bucks. There is always some drawbacks and it all comes to what can you live with, how much you are willing to compromise certain behaviors as to gain other behaviors. 

_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_2) What effect does rear firmness adjustment have on handling balance or conering ability?

All it does is to slow down the weight transfer to the front and outer wheels (the rebound adjustments of the resrs). When we started with all this, I had some great hopes to “fix” some of the mismatching we did with different rebound values front to rear, but as of today I can tell you that it does not work! IT is really difficult (maybe I should say impossible) to mask fundamental mistakes on a suspension with simple rebound (or/and compression) adjustments. Those things are really for fine tuning, and actually fine tuning specific places of the course. If I have to start it all over again, I think for performance springs (not as soft as stock) the best way would be to go 25% all around, drive it like this end explore what happens, where it happens and when, and then start playing as to correct the “small” problem. I if the problem is big (read: severe understeer, etc) you better redo the springs and bars as the Konis would not cure it. Not at least those that we have at home……. But your main question is very interesting and I think several people have been through this in depth through this thread, but I also fully agree with you that reading all this is getting close to insane. So, later today I will try my best to do couple of drawings that I have bene keeping in mind that do explain pretty well what happens when playing with rear rebound and how that helps in turn-in, etc….

_Quote, originally posted by *virtual_dub* »_I tried 0% front and 50% rear at first and the car wallowed from side to side in more slalom like turns. They I went to 100% front and 50% rear to feel the difference, which was much improved in turn in and overall fell, except on broken roads. Then I went to 50% front and 50% rear and I thought I had a reduction in understeer. But now I'm back to 100% front and 50% rear and I feel like there is another reduction in understeer. I'm now thouroughly confused. I guess I need to take a day to do some more analytical testing back to back.

 
It is nice to get the 0 to 50 to 100 test as you did, so you can pretty quickly realize how much difference there is and what adjustable Konis can do, but then you have to concentrate to do really small adjustments and explore them in depth, because the sweet spot may very much be right somewhere in between and you can miss it big time if your increments are too dramatic. But generally, if your VW has no aftermarket anti-roll bar yet, you may want to stiffen the rear more than what you would do if you had one. I personally think 50% rear is little bit too much for daily driver, specially if on somehow stiffer springs that you have. But, if you can stand the ride with 50% rear, then do not touch it! Work on the front and try some lower rebound settings. The lower the rebound, the more “disconnected” you will feel, BUT the better front grip you will have and that is the most important on our nose heavy, understeering cars. So, to make it easy for you, leave the rears where they are now and start from 0% front, then go to 5%, then to 10% and take your time. If you change the settings every one mile, you may not get the full difference right away, so give it some time. Drive for several miles, specially try to drive on the same roads, same speeds. The main thing is: Do Not change anything else, only one thing at a time, so you do not get fooled…… Hope this helps some. More later….


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (pyce)*

Thanks for replying. I know I may be asking some repeat questions. I've tried to form some general relationships from reading the last 27 pages and the details get lost. But as you point out, it's really the details and small increments that allow the performance, or comfort, to be maximized.
I have an idea of a location that I can drive over and over with different settings. I'll let you know how it goes. I may even stick in the portion of my rear bumpstops that I cut out. Thanks again for the help, and inspiration.


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Washers for Everybody!  (virtual_dub)*

I went out driving for a while this evening, and while I don't think I came to any conclusions I have one observation that I am positive is happening. I drove the same stretch of road adjusting the front rebound from 100% down to 50% in quarter turn increments (12.5% increments), if you like degrees (from full soft) this is 720 down to 360 in 90 degree increments. The road was relatively smooth and in the middle of long sweeping turns and a slalom, I could take them at 50-60 mph.
The trend: At each step softer I notice that the sidewalls of my tires were rolling over more. Although I was going the same speed through the turns it felt as if the fronts were pushing more, washing out, as I adjusted the struts softer. This gave the distinct feeling of more understeer. I also tried 50%, 75%, and 100% over a longer sweeping turn that was a little faster and it felt the same, the front wheels felt like they tracked closer to the line of the rear on the stiffer setting.
The only confusing part is that I'm not sure what is causing this. One option is that the higher roll, especially on the initial turn of the wheel, is cause the tires to roll over more. However, I'm beginning to believe that more sidewall roll indicates higher grip from the suspension setup and I would have overall higher grip if I could prevent the sidewall roll. My front tires pressures were around 36 psi (17" OEM) and with the stock suspension I need about 42-46 psi to prevent them from rolling over on an auto-x track.
I may try to up my tire pressures and repeat the test. I'm thinking the softer settings may be overdriving the tires and creating the feeling of less grip. Is this possible or am I just making things up now?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 1*

Hi Folks,
What with Peter (the Hands-On Guy) having performed so many experiments of late, Ceilidh (the Theory Guy) has gotten pretty far behind. So I'm afraid my posts are going to be out of sequence with what Peter's reporting on, but we'll plow on through for the sake of completeness....
Neuspeed SofSports
First, a full (but necessarily truncated) report on the Neuspeed SofSports that went onto my (Ceilidh's) car: this report is truncated because whereas we originally planned to test out a full SofSport spring set, we (for reasons we'll explain below) wound up just trying the fronts. So the test was incomplete -- though hopefully there's still some data you folks might find interesting.
1) Product Positioning
When we first looked at the published spring rates, it looked very much like the Neuspeed SofSports and the Shine SRSS spring sets were more or less in competition with each other: the Neuspeeds are advertised at 220 lb/in Front / 160 lb/in Rear, whereas the Shines are listed as 225 lb/in Front / 180 (or 200, or 150) lb/in Rear. Ride heights are a bit different, with the Shines nominally 1/2" higher than the Neuspeeds in the front, but somewhere between 1/2" to 1" lower in the rear. These published numbers suggest a slightly "racier" performance on the part of the Shines, but not by a whole lot, and overall there looked to be a substantial overlap in overall approach.
Well, that turns out not to be the case.








The Shines and the Neuspeed SofSports are in fact NOT in competition with each other. They are very different spring sets, designed for very different purposes, and there need be no soul-searching on the part of a customer trying to decide between the two. If you want a spring set that is about as firm-riding, g-force enhancing, and neutral-handling as is prudent for most drivers on most roads, go for the Shine. Alternatively, if you want a spring set that moderately reduces body roll and understeer while staying fairly comfortable and good-looking, plug for the SofSports.
In other words, the spring sets appear to do what their respective advertising says they will do. (If you look at what Shine and Neuspeed say about the SRSS and SofSport springs, you'll see that the claims are entirely different from one another -- and here's a case where the advertising claims accurately reflect the companies' intentions for their products.)

2) Some necessary background info
2 quick notes before going forward: Neuspeed lists different front spring heights for VR6 vs. 4-cyl cars, but we were told in conversations with Greg Woo that the same front spring is used for both cars -- despite the presence of different stock numbers and different tabulated spring lengths. In contrast, there are two different SofSport rear springs -- but as to which combination of Golf/Jetta/VR6/4-cyl gets which rear spring, we do not know.
The other note is a potentially major caveat: while we intended to test a full SofSport spring set (which would allow us to directly compare it to the Shine SRSS), we never did (sorry Alex, PMB). Instead, what follows is based on Ceilidh's experience with the SofSport fronts, and Pyce's experience with H&R OE rears (which are said to be a close copy of the SofSport). In the writeup that follows, we'll try hard to distinguish what we actually experienced & measured vs. what we conjecture about the full setup. But if anyone ever completes the experiment we began (i.e., to compare a Shine to a SofSport on the same car, using the same shocks & shock settings, and running the same wheels and tires), we'd be very interested to hear!
(Oh, and if you're just joining in: I had Koni Yellows and Shine "225" front springs on my car earlier this year, and replaced the Shines with SofSport fronts with spacer; rear springs and bar have been stock throughout.)
3) A Matter of Spring Rates
In keeping with the flavour of this thread, we'll reference the SofSport to two known suspensions: the stock GTI 1.8T, and the Shine.
In terms of nominal spring rate, the SofSports do not coincide with the Shines (which the published 220 lb/ft vs. 225 lb/ft rates would suggest), but instead lie between stock and Shine. As mentioned in an earlier post, the Shine "ratings" are essentially parts #'s based on what Shine's spring supplier writes onto the springs; these numbers are typically 10-20% lower than the true installed spring rate. And as mentioned on a more recent post, there's a huge variation in VW stock spring rates, with the GTI and Sport springs evidently 30%+ stiffer than the plain jane stock springs. So, as far as we can tell, here are the Front spring rates:
Stock Golf/Jetta
~130 lb/in ; unverified calculated figure
Stock GTI 1.8T
~150 to ~160 lb/in, depending upon whose spring tester or calculator you use
SofSport Front
~220 lb/in, as measured by Neuspeed's tester (a nominal rating -- see next section)
Shine "225" Front
~260 to ~280 lb/in, depending upon which spring tester used
Someday, somebody will hopefully stand before a single spring tester with all these springs physically before him (her), at which time we'll actually know for sure the relationship between spring rates. But until then, this is the best we can do.
In any case, even in nominal rate, the SofSports are considerably softer than the Shines. That's nominal; in actual installed use (particularly on a 4-cyl car), the SofSports effectively softer, especially in roll. We'll explain why in the next section.

4) Unexpected Progressiveness
If you've seen Peter and Ceilidh's posts on other threads, you'll know that the two of us have been highly skeptical of "progressive rate" claims made by various spring vendors, and that we believe that most "progressive" springs are in fact straight linear springs with a lot of fancy shapes designed to confuse people. Hence, there's a bit of "Only-Nixon-Can-Go-to-China"** in this next statement:
SURPRISE: When installed on a lightweight 4-cyl Golf/Jetta, the SofSport front springs are progressive.
(** For those of you far too young to have heard this expression before: Richard Nixon was the consummate Red-hating Cold Warrior, who made his career in the 1960's urging war against communism. Thus when, as President Nixon in the early 1970s, he suddenly visited communist China on a peace mission, people knew that he wasn't just indulging past prejudices....)
The issue here is the bottom end coil: on the SofSport front, the bottom coil is intended to be a "dead coil" -- a loop of wire that's squashed flat when installed and loaded by the weight of the car. Once it's closed, the spring has a linear rate of 220 lb/in; when it's fully open, however, the rate is around 175 lb/in.
According to Neuspeed, 4000 Newtons (about 900 lbs) of force are needed to close up the coil. The heavier versions of the Golf & Jetta (particularly the newer VR6's) probably apply close to or around this much force on the front springs (to check, you'll need to take the published or measured front corner weights and then subtract out the unsprung weight of the tires, wheels, brakes, uprights, axles, etc.). But the 4-cyl cars -- particularly the lighter editions without a whole lot of heavy options -- sometimes don't.
My (Ceilidh's) car certainly does not. The 2000 GTI 1.8T appears to have been unusually lightweight in the front, as indicated by the following evidence : the stock (violet-pink-pink) front spring on my car is said to be the same spring installed in the current Jetta GLI, which is "lowered" (presumably by being heavier); when the Shine 225's were in place, the front end rode 1/2" higher than any other reported Shine car; and even with the SofSports (which are supposed to lower by 1/2"), the car sits at stock height (the car's actually 3/8" higher than stock at the moment, but that's because I had put in the 3/8" metal spacer). Hence what has happened with my car might not happen with yours -- but on my car, the "dead coil" is not at all dead; it's very much alive.
(For those of you with SofSports, you can very easily check to see if the bottom coil is dead: just reach over the tire (small hands help here!), get your fingers onto the very bottom coil, and try to squeeze it downwards against the spring seat. If the coil's dead, it won't budge; if it moves downwards (even just a millimeter), it's live.)
In any case, on my car, I have a (nominally) ~175 lb/in spring that goes to ~220 lb/in on big bumps, or on heavy braking or moderate cornering.

[Continued Next Post]


_Modified by Ceilidh at 8:22 AM 7-19-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2*

5) Progressiveness and Ride Comfort
On the ride comfort front, the "open" SofSports feel great! I cannot feel a comfort difference between these springs and the stock GTI coils (indeed, the SofSports and the stock springs have an identical spring gauge and essentially the same number of coils (the end coils are wound differently, so it's hard to directly compare). Nor is there a comfort penalty when the dead coil closes up -- I cannot feel any sudden firmness, and the ride comfort on big bumps is very good indeed.
[For regular readers of this thread: with Shine Front/ Stock Rear, the mismatched front & rear rates made for a lot of pitching on Massachusetts roads; to curb this pitching, I had to use extremely high (1 3/8 turn) damping rates on the front Konis, which led to a harsh ride on certain road surfaces. With the SofSports, the initial spring rate is so soft that there's no pitching, and hence I'm able to use extremely soft damping (1/4 turn, which is softer than the 3/8 I ran with the stock springs). As a result, the ride comfort is much better than with the Shine Front setup. (But please also note Peter's experiments with Shine 225 Front / 200 Rear : with matched F & R spring rates, he also was able to reduce the shock damping, with a consequent improvement in ride quality.)]
How does this excellent comfort square with the many reports of the SofSports being firm riding? Well....
a) Maybe a heavier car with a closed dead coil (and thus a higher initial rate) will ride more harshly.
b) Alternatively, perhaps it's the firmer shocks that people invariably install at the same time as the springs.
c) Or perhaps the "firmness" arises when people compare the very soft non-GTI/Sport stock spring to the SofSport.
d) Or maybe it's the rear springs that cause the ride harshness (remember, I'm still on stock rear springs).
Who really knows? My vote is for (b), as Peter and I are consistently finding that shock damping has a much bigger effect on ride comfort than does front spring rate -- but one should also note that Peter has invariably found that firm rear springs will degrade the ride comfort. In any case, if a 4-cyl on SofSports feels rough riding, the culprit is not the front spring rate.

6) Progressiveness and Handling
This one is more complicated.
First, a major caveat: nobody at Neuspeed ever intended a SofSport front spring to be paired with a stock rear. SofSports are sold only in complete sets, and a rear bar is usually added to the system. Hence what follows does not indicate what a SofSport installation will feel like; instead, it's a report on how a progressive front spring handles when paired with a stock rear.
The Good Points:
Brake dive is no problem. Even with Konis and GTI springs, there's noticeable brake dive (albeit much much less than with stock shocks), and a nice feature of the Shine Front setup was that this dive was essentially gone. With the SofSports, the front is not quite so solid as it was with the Shines, but there's less dive than with stock springs. Apparently the dead coil closes up quickly under heavy braking, and thus we get the benefit of the 200 lb/in rate.
Cornering Roll is less than stock. This effect is most noticeable in the faster sweepers, where the car is noticeably flatter than stock. It's not as flat as with the stiff Shine Fronts, but it's not bad -- basically it's in between stock & Shine Front. On the slower corners the roll seems similar to what I remember from stock, and it's noticeably more than with the Shine (primarily due to the softened damping -- when I had the front Konis cranked up, the difference from Shine was not great)..
The Neutral Points:
Cornering Power seems very similar to stock, as does overall understeer. Presumably these points improve when the rear springs are paired with the fronts.
The Not so Good Points:
(Again, please note these are the SofSport fronts paired with the stock rears ; a full SofSport set should behave differently. Also, the handling ills appear to be directly related to my dead coils not closing up properly, which might be a unique situation related to the particular front-end weight of my car.)
Cornering Stability has deteriorated considerably from Shine Front. With the stiff, linear Shine springs, there's a rock solid stable feeling in a fast sweeping corner. With the soft, linear stock springs, there's a predictable roll in the same corner. But with the open-coil progressive, a fast sweeper can feel a little strange, with the car working uneasily against the suspension and refusing to take a set. It's almost as if the dead coil is opening and closing through the course of the corner, throwing the car off a little each time the spring rate changes. The roll is less than stock, yes, but in some ways I prefer the stock feeling, as whilst the roll is greater, the car will take a set and hold it.
And most strangely, the car no longer trail-brakes the way it did both with stock GTI springs and with the Shine Front. With both of those setups, it was easy to point the car into even a moderate corner with a bit of trail braking. But with the progressive front, I can't do it. With speeds and braking forces that easily had the Shine Front and Stock cars rotating around (rear end sidestepping out neatly), the current car just plows on. If I trail brake much more heavily and really throw the wheel, the nose will swing in, but only after a disconcerting lag, and the rear doesn't rotate around at all. Very strange, and very sloppy.

7) Theory and Recommendations to Others
As in many respects the SofSport spring simply doesn't work on my light-front-end GTI (that dead coil is designed to be dead, and probably will be on a heavier car), I won't spend very much time at all with theory, save in the context of some conjectural recommendations to others:
a) Don't raise a SofSport car to Shine height. I have the 3/8" metal spacer in place to bring the front end to Shine height (15 1/8" wheel center to fender lip), but when I put it in place, I was thinking the spring rate would be linear. With the SofSport , the spring rate is almost stepped (220 lb/in with the dead coil closed, and 175 lb/in with it open), and the step occurs shortly after the car begins rolling (the outside wheel feels the stiffer rate, while the inside wheel feels the softer one). For reasons I won't go into here (it's getting late







), this "stepped" spring rate lifts the front end as the car rolls, and the roll center winds up higher than it would be were the springs linear in rate. Hence if we assume that Shine got the ride height correct for linear springs, then we'd want the SofSports to ride a little lower.
b) Don't expect a SofSport to reduce roll as much as the Shine does. With a stepped rate spring, the roll resistance in a corner is the average of the two spring rates (because the outer wheel is operating at the stiff rate, while the inner wheel is at the soft rate). Hence if the SofSport is 175 lb/in (open coil) and 220 lb/in (closed coil), then the effective front spring rate while cornering is 198 lb/in. That's considerably higher than the stock GTI 150-160 lb/in (and much more so than the non-GTI 130 lb/in), but much less than the Shine 260-280 lb/in.
c) The above assumes the dead coil just barely closes when the car is at rest. If the front of the car is light enough that the coil is well-open, then you have essentially stock rate until the car is really rolling. For this reason, it's possible that a VR6 will benefit from the SofSport front more than will a light 4-cyl car with few options.
d) Conversely, a light 4-cyl car might have a nice combination of reduced initial understeer (because of the soft front and stiffened rear (if the SofSport rear is mounted)), and increased stabilizing understeer at higher cornering loads (because of the increased rate when the dead coil closes). The tradeoff here, however, is the element of randomness introduced by the closing dead coil: as that coil opens and closes mid-corner (either due to changing roll, or to mid-corner bumps), the rate changes and the cornering behaviour changes too. This unpredictability does wonders neither for cornering stability nor for transient handling.
e) Pay careful attention to damping! If you want maximum ride comfort, you should have soft shock damping. If you want to trade some ride comfort away in return for handling (and don't care about looks), you have an interesting choice: you can either go for stiff shocks with the SofSports, or you can go Shine 225/200 with soft Koni settings. Peter might have some perspective here on which is the better setup. (And if you want max handling, go with the Shine...)

8) Why we didn't complete the experiment
Much as it would have been interesting to put the rear springs on in conjunction with the front, we decided not to because of time, money, and fairness: simply put, my GTI handles badly on the SofSport fronts with their opened dead coils, and the results with SofSport rears would not have been indicative of what a properly performing SofSport kit will be like.
Please note however: PMB's 4-cyl car appears to ride 1/2" or so lower than mine, so his dead coil is either closed or much closer to closing than mine is; hence we'd expect his car to be much freer of the handling problems mine has. To repeat, the handling problems on my car arise from the unclosed dead coil; if your car is heavy enough to close that coil at rest, then the SofSports offer an interesting option midway between a stock GTI and a Shine.
Cheers everybody!
- Ceilidh



_Modified by Ceilidh at 7:57 AM 7-19-2004_


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2 (Ceilidh)*

Ceilidh,
After reading your posts, I felt curious and snapped a couple pictures of my Sofsport/Bilstein HD setup on the VR6 GTI:

















As far as I can tell, the dead coils are pretty much dead. You can see the two visible bottom coils touching with the top one gently rising away. I could not feel any play in the coils with my bare hands. Also note that I do not have the 1/4"-3/8" aluminum spacer that came with the OEM suspension.
I have driven this car hard on the racetrack and have not noticed any of the detriments to handling that you experienced. Sweeping turns are a breeze and everything is predictable. A lot of that is probably due to the stiff Bilstein dampers, although it may be the case that the Sofsport springs are just better suited for the VR6 application.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2 (phatvw)*

Hello Phatvw,
Thanks for the reply (and for all your posts on the Vortex -- they've always been helpful and interesting!). Your dead coils do appear to be closed in a way that mine are not, and your post has also made me realize I could have been clearer in what I wrote last night:
1) If I crank up the front Koni setting to where I had it with the Shine (1 3/8 turn, which is still probably a little shy of where the Bilsteins lie, judging from Peter's posts), the instability goes away, and everything's quite solid and predictable. The unsettled feeling occurs with soft rebound settings (1/4 - 3/8 turn), which is where the ride is most comfortable (and where the stock spring is quite settled in feel). At this setting the SofSports are not underdamped -- you'd have to drive the car to feel what I mean, but underdamping has a different sensation -- but they're not so clamped down as to have any handling quirks expunged. But yes, if you have very stiff damping, the cornering instability goes away.
2) I also went back into my post and edited it to make it clear that my car might be unusually light in the front, even for a 4-cyl, and that the handling quirks might thus be unique to my particular model & year. Certainly it appears the springs are working as designed in your VR6, and hopefully PMB (4Dbunny) can confirm the same for his 4-cyl.
Anyway, congrats on your setup, and have a great week!
- C


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2 (Ceilidh)*

Great write-up again, Winston! It is very, very nice that you are talking about your experience in the way it is! It is not about "pushing" a product instead of another - it is about to find how the different solutions really work and see if we can get some knowledge extracted from it, learn few lessons and most of all, think about solutions. It is very important that people know what they are going for when purchasing these products. They do work differently on different engines, even if it sounds nuts to say so. Also, different spring works quiet differently with different damper. Sure, the big debate regarding which is better (stiffer spring & softer dampers or softer springs & stiffer dampers) is not going to be ended today. Perhaps it will never end. But at least today we know little bit more than yesterday and that is all good








Few things from my end..... I am having great time with the "Stock" suspension. Put more than 2.000 miles with this setup, and that includes long weekend traveling around the state. It feels very balanced on 25% front rebound and 25% rear. It may sound disappointing, but I guess this will be it for me. It is great balance between comfort and performance. It sounds "too little" as a setup, but it is not. And besides, there are always the spacers that do give a lot more than what may sound like. Stack those till there is not gap between the buffer and the spacer - and you have a "shine-like" flat feeling and super turn-in and road holding in curve! The only thing I wish to try would be to put back the rear 337 spring, as it really reduces the roll some without lost in comfort and see how that goes and what would that give with the spacers and modified buffers....
Ha! Talking about buffers..... Had a chance to explore in depth the new Porsche GT Carrera. It is an absolute state of art in terms of design and engineering, but then we will go too much off topic..... So, the rear suspension is very interesting piece (actually it is the same as the front). It comes with some sort of coil-overs by default, made by Sachs and uses the pushrod/bellcranks type on two (upper and lower) A-arms. But let's do not go in details, I am sure it had been said enough about this through articles, etc.... The reason I am mentioning it is that even a 450.000 $ car with very sophisticated suspension uses bump-stops like we do







So, I took this picture especially for you fine folks here, to admire the rear GT Carrera Bump Stops:








By the way, very strong stuff! It is not any near the buffers I got on my ride..... Perhaps we should do a Group Buy and put those on out otherwise stock cars, so we get ”stealth" 300 lb/in rates on the rear, LOL








On another note, you may remember I put 225-50-16 tires on the front wheels (16x7) and 205-55-16 tires on the rears (also 16x7). Against some recommendations (Ian is one those you know here) we put the GoodYear F1 tire in the front. Put more than 1.000 mile on it since, and the initial impression is that the car does have higher speed in curve, but it may be very misleading as it replaced a narrower S-03 in the front. There are many other things I could say, but again, we are not comparing same size tires, so it will not be correct. It is a great tire for street use thought! Very quiet (so far) and very "comfortable" (softer side walls). I do not know if it will work great on stiff suspension, but it works quiet well on "stock" setup. As suggested, it is at 40 PSI. ......... An interesting thing that happens when having staggered tires (wider in front): It may sound very stupid, but here it goes...... I do not know exactly how to explain it, but the rear wheels are filling with mini pieces of rubber from the front tires. You know how it is when driving in very dusty roads (off road) and the dust covers the wheels between the spokes and it stays there (in the corners) where the wind can not blow it out even if you drive faster after that...... well, since I got these wider tires in the front, the rear wheels (in all corners) are filling with rubber dust from the front tire. Never happened before, so my guess is the wider tire in front is the reason. When the mini particles of rubber fly away, they do fly near the rear wheel and when fly by, some got "sucked" into the wheel (turbulences) and "sit" in there till you remove them....... Yeah, sounds stupid, but it is really happening. Hope someone else tries wider in front and see if I have day dreaming again


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2 (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_I do not know exactly how to explain it, but the rear wheels are filling with mini pieces of rubber from the front tires. You know how it is when driving in very dusty roads (off road) and the dust covers the wheels between the spokes and it stays there (in the corners) where the wind can not blow it out even if you drive faster after that...... well, since I got these wider tires in the front, the rear wheels (in all corners) are filling with rubber dust from the front tire. Never happened before, so my guess is the wider tire in front is the reason. When the mini particles of rubber fly away, they do fly near the rear wheel and when fly by, some got "sucked" into the wheel (turbulences) and "sit" in there till you remove them....... Yeah, sounds stupid, but it is really happening. Hope someone else tries wider in front and see if I have day dreaming again











Hmmm somehow I doubt thats just because the front tires are 1" wider. How old are the Goodyears? Perhaps they are still wearing in and it is the surface layer covered with mould-release lubricant that is coming off. 1000 miles should have taken care of that, but who knows. Hmmm I have the exact same Goodyear tires in 225/45-17. I never noticed any rubber bits collecting, although my dusty brake pads probably mask just about everything








I hate to be negative, but maybe it is an issue with your particular set? How does the treadwear look?
BTW that Porsche setup looks sexy! Nice picture!


_Modified by phatvw at 7:33 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## 4dBunny (Nov 30, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: SofSport Report, Part 2 (pyce)*

Winston, thanks for the report. Sorry about not posting sooner, but I have been very busy. 
I am also sorry that you have not had the same experience with the SofSports that I have had. I can say with almost absolute certainty that the coils are "dead" on my GTi. While I have not physically inspected to check, I have measured the ride height reduction, and I know that there is little to no variation in spring rate as you have described. The rate is linear and firm.
I wonder what the difference in weight is between your car and mine. I can aldo tell you that using a complete set of Sofsports for me was the way to go. I have zero complaints with that setup. The best and most overused compliment is that my car feels "like it should have come this way from the factory"-- that is, at least for my tastes. 
I do also believe that much of the credit for the way that my car feels is a little bit of synergy between the Tokico HP's and the SofSports. The HP characteristics seems to be in between the characteristics of the Koni's and the Bilsteins. The damping rate is ideal, in my opinion, for use with the Sofsports-- IF you are not looking for ultimate performance. My only concerns are that, ultimately, the HP's may not be as reliable as Konis or Bilsteins. However, they were MUCH less expensive as well.
Winston, I do wish you could take a ride in my SofSport GTI so that we could have a better baseline.
Cheers for now.
PMB


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?.....*

Catching up with Peter -- the auxiliary springs
Ok, here's an abridged installment, primarily because we need to ask Peter to collect his measurements and post them all here in one spot (he's posted them before, but I've forgotten exactly where....).
In any case, we now look at "Why the sudden interest in rear washers????!".
Background
Concurrent with this thread, Peter's been spending time building a McPherson Strut kinematic model, which in turn had him looking in detail at how much travel is actually permitted by the various OEM and aftermarket struts and rear shocks. At the same time, he gathered copious data on VW OEM spring rates and lengths (yes, he's been quite busy!), and as the various lines of data came trickling in, something interesting became apparent:
1) Even with stock springs and shocks, a Golf/Jetta IV doesn't have to roll very much at all before contact with the bumpstops;
2) With the many, many stock Golf/Jetta/Beetle springs, VW seems to be trying very hard to make seemingly minor tweaks in ride height for different models & options (e.g., there are multiple front springs all sharing a rate of roughly 150 lb/in, each presumably with a slightly different free length);
3) Tape-measure inspections of nearby cars had already shown that despite an official uniform ride-height for all Golfs & Jettas (other than for things like AE and GLI's, of course), there is in fact considerable variation between different models, both at the front and at the rear. The impression is that ride height differences of 1/2" or even 1/4" are deliberate and apparently significant; the variations don't show up in the data tables, but they're there on the cars.
So the question that arose was, "Why?".

Conjecture
We can't prove it, but our current impression is that the bumpstops on the Golf/Jetta might play a much bigger role in the stock handling setup than has generally been thought. For most of us posting on this forum, a "bumpstop" has been just that: a soft stop to keep the suspension from damaging itself when it reaches the limits of its travel. Certainly in my own (Ceilidh's) past experience, a bumpstop was something you only rarely hit on the biggest bumps (typically during a corner or transient maneuver), and it was primarily a damage-prevention device, not a tuning aid. In recent years, we've all of course read how bumpstops have become softer, taller, and more progressive, but even here we tend to think of them as a way to get by with softer primary springs -- we don't usually think of them playing the role of the primary springs themselves.
But now we're wondering. It appears that the Golf/Jetta is designed -- even in stock form -- to contact the bumpstops during moderate steady-state, smooth-road cornering. If so, then it is emphatically on the stops during transient maneuvers (e.g., while trail braking or accelerating out of a corner), and will be all the more so if the road is anything but glass smooth. In such a situation (particularly if, as is the case with the stock buffers, the bumpstops are tall, initially quite soft, and stiffen smoothly and progressively), the "stops" are not damage-prevention devices; nor are they particularly "auxiliary springs" permitting the use of a soft "primary" steel spring. Instead, they become an integral part of the spring and handling system itself.
This possibility (which we're still only exploring and testing out) is at once exciting and sobering. The exciting aspect is one that Peter's seized upon with his rear-washer experiments: if the bumpstops are intended to come into play during normal handling maneuvers, perhaps we can modify the manner and degree in which they enter the scene. With the washers, Peter in effect is saying "Ok, so the rear stops give me more rear spring rate when the car rolls; in that case, let me see what happens if I trick them into coming in a little earlier in a corner....". Heretofore the stops have been seen as a problem ("Be sure to cut your stops." is a piece of advice I and others have blithely given to others...); now they are potential tuning aids.
The sobering aspect is one that concerns me (Ceilidh, the brooding theorist) more: if the stops play in integral role in governing the stock handling characteristics, then suddenly it's become much harder to modify the suspension in straightforward, predictable ways. Because now we have to worry about how we transition onto the stops, and how the stops interact with our aftermarket springs and bars.
To give an example: suppose we lower the rear (to lower the CG without screwing up the roll center heights). Doing so will bring the rear stops into play earlier than the fronts, so we get more neutrality under moderate roll. That can be good -- but what happens when the front stops begin to act? Will the fore & aft balance of lateral weight transfer remain consistent? Or will the balance change unpredictably at different cornering loads? For that matter, how comfortable is the rear now? If we stiffen the rear while lowering, then maybe we can bring the stops in smoothly -- but if the rears are too soft, the stops will come in with a bang, and the ride will seem jarring or bouncy. So what do we do? Do we stiffen the rear springs, so the stops come in gradually (but maybe the stiff springs themselves will be uncomfortable)? Or do we cut away the stops, so that they don't come in so soon? But if we cut them away, we lose their rate contribution in roll -- so have we gained as much handling-wise as we had hoped we would? Maybe we would have been better off lowering a little bit less, and keeping more of the stop in place....
Or, consider this: suppose we find the perfect spring that interacts with the buffers in just the right way. Will that spring work on a different model of Golf or Jetta? If the second car is much lighter or heavier, so that the ride height is now 1/2" higher or lower, will the spring still work well? (Note, by the way, that the "C" rear bumpstop VW uses on some cars is only 1/2" shorter than the stock stop -- evidently variations of 1/2" can be important.) It's a bit sobering to see VW fiddling with its spring rates from model year to model year, and then to realize that the aftermarket -- out of sheer economic necessity -- has to offer a single spring for an entire line of cars. Will that spring work for the entire lineup? If not, on which ones will it be best?
Anyway, the problem is not inconquerable -- it's just food for thought. Figuring out what works best for our cars has always been an interesting challenge; now things have become a little more interesting......








Cheers!
- C


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ ..... 2) With the many, many stock Golf/Jetta/Beetle springs, VW seems to be trying very hard to make seemingly minor tweaks in ride height for different models & options (e.g., there are multiple front springs all sharing a rate of roughly 150 lb/in, each presumably with a slightly different free length).....

Right on! Different length, but similar spring rate...... this way you get to the bump-stops earlier or later and that 1/2" or less, seems nothing, but gives very noticeable difference in curve! We were talking about the difference between the "B" and "C" buffers before. A quick look in some catalogs shows that only for the Bora 2002 there are four different rear bump stops available! I ordered couple and as soon as they arrive, will try to test them on the spring bench and see what is the rate on those and most of all, how “progressively” the rate goes up. Also made few very thin washers, about 3 mm. each, for fine tuning, and it is amazing when you get it to certain point, how much just 3 mm. can do! Also, the famous shorter but stiffer buffer “C” that Alex found on the 337 rear, is the same one that goes on every Jetta with Sport Package. So, that one is not only for lowered cars. The stock dampers are also different part numbers among the Lux Package, HD and Sport Package…. I wonder if it is just valving or it is also damper’s body length, so the bump stops do get in contact earlier or later. I guess there are other things to discover as well, time will only tell. One thing is for sure thought, we can do a lot more with rear bump stops than what we thought few months ago…….

_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_ ……It's a bit sobering to see VW fiddling with its spring rates from model year to model year, and then to realize that the aftermarket -- out of sheer economic necessity -- has to offer a single spring for an entire line of cars. Will that spring work for the entire lineup? If not, on which ones will it be best? …. 

Many in the past would have rejected your thought, but your recent experience with the V6 SofSport makes the above quote spot on! I hope people would take this in consideration when tuning their cars and keep in mind that what may work rather well on an 2.0 Golf GL may not be a poor option for a Jetta 1.8T…. and if in case works fine on both, then it may be very important what are the dampers in use for the specific application….


----------



## dubbabubba (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*

Check out Carroll Smiths book "Race to Win". He mentions the use of bumpstops to tune a suspension. He suggests that it can be used as a progressive rate helper spring. Also http://www.truechoice.com is an authorized Koni dealer /service and in their catalog has polyurethane spacers (1/8 " I think ) to fine tune suspensions. My under standing is that cars like the Dodge Neon used the same springs in the base model and the ACR (American Club Racer) but used different bumpstops to stiffen the suspension. It is also an old showroom stock racers trick to add additional bumpstop material because you couldn't change the springs. They have been doing this for about twenty years. Sorry to take away from your discovery but you are definitely on the right track to an inexpensive way to change your suspension. Talk to some of the shock guys (Truechoice/Koni) and they can tell you the approximate "spring rates" of their bumpstops.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (dubbabubba)*

Dubba... Absolutely right! Someone mentioned the Koni selection of bump stops long time ago in this thread too. People told me about the NASCAR "tricks" with he buffers before we even started this topic..... I hope did not convey the wrong message to the people who read here that a "discovery" was made. It would be so foolish to believe that a "bumpstop" is a discovery in year 2004. VW themselves do use those things (in different length and shape) and put them on the same spring, but do obtain Luxurious and Sport Packages depending on the bump stop only......... The "discovery" (if we can use that word at all) is that solid plastic washers can be machined in a way that can snap in and out very easy, fast and do work exceptionally well together with the existing bump stop. People can at least convert their cars to a VW with "Sport Package" or can go even further, and all this without going for aftermarket springs, which some time are even softer, but because the car sits on the buffers, the "effect" is there...... but you all know that, doe snot need to come out again. I went the link you posted and there were few things that I thought may be the parts in our case, but there were no pictures available, so I could not see what they are talking about. Do you have a picture or link to that "poly spacers 1/8" that you were mentioning? Thanks.


----------



## resinguy (Apr 25, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*

pyce, on the truechoice site, choose (







) the 'NEW, click here' link for the on-line catalog, then in the top section of the new page, scroll down to the entry for 'bump stops'. Select that link (pg 12) and the pdf page will open. There you will see the 'plastic packers'
btw, I have been lurking on this thread from the beginning, because I was strongly leaning towards a full Shine package on car. I was very interested in the change of direction you and ceilidh took towards a 'GT suspension', as that seems more in line with my needs. So now I am leaning towards the 'Koni w/VR6 springs' set-up. Thanks!!


----------



## dubbabubba (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (resinguy)*

Yeah thats it , plastic packers. Call them and get their catalog. They give a better description . They are decent to deal with too ! They can rebuild your Koni's, but I myself am a Bilstein guy. Back to bumpstops, they once told me that they put their soft BR's on the spring rate checker and got about 50#'s and their stiff BR's were at about 150# if I remember correctly. And you could put one in a lathe or possible a drill and turn it down with a surform tool into a cone, making it progressive in nature. Also http://www.hrsprings.com has a selection of BR's.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C"*

Thanks for the links and explanation! At this point I really wish I knew all this before I even got the car, so I could have save TONS of money and you do not want to know how many hours too!!! And most of all, I would have done it "right" (or at least if not right, then definitely a right first step!) since day one…….. There are so many things we take for granted, so many words said on this same forum that have been said just for the fun of saying it and so many “little” advises given from time to time from someone who somehow remains unnoticed have been neglected. The Buffers were our enemies and now are our friends. They all knew that (H&R, Koni, Bisltein, etc) and used it, so they can sale successful parts. They “engineered” it to work like this, together with the buffers. Even la VW engineered it this way, just not many here knew it and somehow got neglected……. The “C” Bump Stops just arrived this morning and needless to say we spent the lunch with Charles in the shop, with the compression gauge, trying to take some rates. You just hold in hands the “C” buffer and the “B” buffer and you already know they are very different rates! The “C” is very hard, probably about 40 to 70% harder than the “B” buffer. This is how you get “The Sport Package” on your VW, with the “C” buffer! People keep selling and buying spring, while the buffer on top does a lot more that few pounds per inch difference in the springs that we all constantly replace as to “get there”. Put couple of washers on top and this thing is flat like you got three sway bars below…… Anyway, we managed to compress the “C” buffer for only 9/10 of an inch as it was starting to bind, but it was enough to see that the projected rate for the first inch of stroke would have been at about 115-120 lb. That is almost the rate of the stock rear spring!!! I would try to put those tonight and will take out the remaining of the “B” buffers, will glue them so to make one piece and tomorrow we will test them as well. Then I will put the numbers together and we will do a graph of how the two behave at every 0,1”……. More on this tomorrow.


----------



## dubbabubba (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (pyce)*

Nice job and thanks for the info. Hard data talks and B.S. walks. The nice thing about bumpstops and packers is that you don't have to go with the high dollar shocks and all the adjustability and junk. Keep in mind that the bumpstops will deteriorate over time and need replacement.


----------



## resinguy (Apr 25, 2001)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (dubbabubba)*

check out this article about bump stops!!:
http://www.hrsprings.com/site/....html


----------



## virtual_dub (Sep 8, 2003)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (resinguy)*

That was a good read, here are my comments.

_Quote, originally posted by *h&r* »_Car manufacturers use this brilliant piece of high-tech engineering for many reasons. By using an almost zero-weight supplemental spring, you can build the main (steel) spring with a reduced spring rate for a comfy ride. The softer spring uses less weight, and, saving weight is a number one priority of new car manufacturers. Cars have thousands of parts. A little weight saved here and there really adds up. When the manufactures save weight they also save costs, less material=less cost. So we now know why these foamy gems are used. But how do they really work? 

I don't buy this explanation, most of the article is good, but I think this sounds made up. The weight saved seems like it could be all of 5 lbs. Now it may save a little money but I think there are better reasons to tune with the buffers.

_Quote, originally posted by *resinguy* »_Otherwise the spring will not work in harmony with the bumpstop and the frequency of the suspension will be out sync. 

I think the natural frequency of the suspension is the real reason. This has been mentioned here and there in this thread and we;ve sort of characterized what frequencies are comfortable. A few suspension books I've skimmed always focus on the frequency when looking at handling. Now that I've changed my suspension I know what this feels like. The stock suspension settles over bumps at a certain rate, something quick 1-2Hz I would guess. My Neuspeed Sports are much "bouncier", the car vibrates more quickly over the same bumps. I think this is the increased spring rate changing the natural frequency of the suspension. The higher frequency is definitely less comfortable.

_Quote, originally posted by *h&r* »_So, what has little Johnny learned today? There is no such thing as a bumpstop in a modern suspension. The bumpstop has been replaced by a supplemental, active foam rubber spring, which is one of the essential components in the suspension.

So now he tells us. I guess some people knew all this before reading this thread. From following the developments here, it seems like you all came to this conclusion from your own testing. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif It doesn't settle well that we're just relearning what others already know, but I guess it's hard to ask the right questions of the right people. I do like how each conclusion seems to agree with theory and these experiments are definitely moving us in the right direction.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (resinguy)*

Now if only we could insert/remove/tune the bump buffers w/o having to pull the strut out all the time.
Almost reminds me of the off road trucks where there is a coil over for the spring and a seperate shock for "damping" (usually a bypass shock)...
Also - off road race trucks typicaly run a "air bump" - an air/oil itme that acts just like the bumpers do that we are discussing. They have to deal with mich higher weights and much larger travel numbers...


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C"*

You want "Sport Package" for 32.16 $? Here it is

















For the real life data lovers, here is what we have discovered today:









Now we know little bit more of why the New Beetle "handles" better........ yeah, the things that "little Johnny" learns every day!


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_ 
You want "Sport Package" for 32.16 $? Here it is










Where do you get the C bumpstops for that price? The dealer quoted me $52.22 with tax for a pair.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (phatvw)*

Phat, the Dealer is the last place on earth I would get something for my car! Got this pare from a local shop (SFBA, San Jose precisely). You can find the phone number in here: http://www.bugformance.com Call them (look for Dani) instead of writing an e-mail. They do not have them in stock, but can get them in one day and mail them to you.


----------



## mitsui-g (Jul 23, 2003)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Also, the famous shorter but stiffer buffer “C” that Alex found on the 337 rear, is the same one that goes on every Jetta with Sport Package. So, that one is not only for lowered cars. 


I have to disagree with that statement for the simple fact that when I changed the suspension on my Jetta (02 Jetta GLI w/sport suspension), it came with the "B" bumpstops. The other reason why I know is because I also bought the C bumpstop and measured both pieces before installing the new suspension.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (mitsui-g)*

Sorry, I did not mean to say "every" but "some". You are right. My bad. Have seen WE Jettas and they suppose to be with SP, but they do also carry the "B" buffer......


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*

Hi Folks,
So is it the end of the road for this thread? If so, I'll try to pull the main points together into sort of a concise summary (hmmm. Ceilidh. Concise. This should be interesting....







). Any thoughts as to what would be most useful? Just let me know what you'd like, and I'll try to frame the summary accordingly.
Cheers, everyone!
- Ceilidh


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (Ceilidh)*

Summary:
Well start with the "startlingly not so obvious"
- Tires before suspension
- driver before tires
That aftermarket tuners typically make a "one size fits all" spring and the OEM has a myriad of spring/damper/bumpstops combos.
That the OEM in general knows what its doing - those Engineers are doing something








That lowering GC w/o changing other parameters (roll center) is good - but that lowering the car isnt always good
That there are trade offs in suspension
That shocks may do more than springs
That BUMPERS do A WHOLE LOT more than many people suspect
Then break into the details
Summary of acceptable spring rate (brackets) for each model year
stock
street mod sport
race
Summary of general impressions of damper types
OEM
twin tube
gas
DeCarbon / monotube
Overview of shock tuning
what CAN and CANT be done with shocks

Sidebar - damper cutting edge
Praxis
electrical manipulation of oil characteristics
"active" suspension
Then go over the a summary of the differnt combos and driver impressions

Hmmm - this is turning into the next Robert Bently book - "Watercooled VW Suspension Tuning"


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_
Hmmm - this is turning into the next Robert Bently book - "Watercooled VW Suspension Tuning"


I reckon that the Vortex media group owns as much rights to the posts on this site as the actual posters do - because of the agreement we all clicked OK to when we signed up. Maybe they could just compile a best-of-the-vortex guide and publish it. I'd buy a copy


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (phatvw)*

Remember this?








The names there are of those who started this topic, but at this stage more and more people got involved, so no hurt feelings if you do not see your name now ...... I am working on a new "cover" that would include everyone who contributed till today







I am also thinking one day to re-read the whole thread and create a guideline (some sort of menu) that would be included in the very first post on page one and that menu would describe briefly what ever page is all about. This way if someone needs to find out how to tweak Konis, goes directly to page 12 and 13. If someone needs to find more about buffers - goes directly to the page listed there, etc ......


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (phatvw)*

random thoughts.....
BTW - I was flipping through some back issues of RaceCar Enginnering - and there was an artilce on dampers...
The initial point - that dampers are difficult to make becuase of the fas/slow issue.
We WANT the damper to be HARD under SLOW movements (think ya want the car tpo be stiff in roll) but SOFT under fast movements (i.e ya want it to be smooth over cobblestones to keep the contact patch down) - and this is diffucult to achive (the opposite - soft in slow, hard in fast - is easy - fulid dynamices sez so - orific will do this)...
Off road race shocks attempt to do this with "Bypass" valving - allowing a position sensitive valving (aka HARD at the ends of travel and SOFT inteh center range) but this does not address the "hard in roll but soft in bumps"
I guess a roll bar attempts to do this - by allow "soft" dual compression...
At least one rally car (RaceCar Enginnering artilce) does this by fluid exchange between dampers - essentially a hydrulic controlled roll bar... if BOTH dampers compressed, the pressures on the dampers were both high and the pressure bleed off into a third chamber. If the pressures were different (roll) then the valve closed to "pump up" the inside suspension...


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (dubbabubba)*

Hi folks... 
Well, it's been a while since my last post as I am still in Europe and haven't been driving for a month now! Summer school is almost over and I will back home soon to test out my new suspension and report back here...
Now, right after I get back I am going to this track event on 6th of September... was wondering what setting should I use on the Konis? It is currently at 1 turn front, and 3/4 turn rear. Let me know if anyone has tracked the Sofsport+koni, or XYZ+Koni and at what setting...
Cheers,
Alex


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Buffers ...... "B" vs. "C" (alexb75)*

Hi Alex.... I am sure you are having a blast in Denmark!







As for your question, you better ask in the "racing forum", I am sure plenty of people do track days on Konis..... my guess would be that on a glass-smooth track you can go very near 100% stiff on all four corners, and perhaps tweaking the rear rebound for different turn-in...... Perhaps you can try a set of those washers I have been driving on for some time now. IIRC you have the stiffer "C" buffers, which work great with the washers! Actually it would be great if you can try those things on the track and fine-tune the rear fast and easy. I bet you will be impressed. Let me know once you are back....


----------



## Maverick99 (Mar 23, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_
random thoughts.....
BTW - I was flipping through some back issues of RaceCar Enginnering - and there was an artilce on dampers...
The initial point - that dampers are difficult to make becuase of the fas/slow issue.
We WANT the damper to be HARD under SLOW movements (think ya want the car tpo be stiff in roll) but SOFT under fast movements (i.e ya want it to be smooth over cobblestones to keep the contact patch down) - and this is diffucult to achive (the opposite - soft in slow, hard in fast - is easy - fulid dynamices sez so - orific will do this)...
Off road race shocks attempt to do this with "Bypass" valving - allowing a position sensitive valving (aka HARD at the ends of travel and SOFT inteh center range) but this does not address the "hard in roll but soft in bumps"
I guess a roll bar attempts to do this - by allow "soft" dual compression...
At least one rally car (RaceCar Enginnering artilce) does this by fluid exchange between dampers - essentially a hydrulic controlled roll bar... if BOTH dampers compressed, the pressures on the dampers were both high and the pressure bleed off into a third chamber. If the pressures were different (roll) then the valve closed to "pump up" the inside suspension...


This can be achieved if you can shell out the dough for a Mercedes SL500 or other high end luxury sport coupes.









I have a different question:
Do I have to completely remove the rear shocks to adjust the Koni's or can I just undo the top 2 bolts and then undo the bumpstops to adjust the rears. It seems such a pain to have to take apart the bottom bolts, especially since I have a sway bar attached. 
Alex.......how rough is the ride in the rear at 3/4 turn. I believe the garage that installed mine set mine one full turn and I am finding the ride rough, especially with the softer Eibach Pro-kit springs which are probably not strong enought to allow the dampers to fully rebound after successive hits.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (Maverick99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Maverick99* »_.....Do I have to completely remove the rear shocks to adjust the Koni's or can I just undo the top 2 bolts and then undo the bumpstops to adjust the rears. It seems such a pain to have to take apart the bottom bolts, especially since I have a sway bar attached.... 

If you really want to do it for the sick of doing it - yes, you can. But it will be more trouble at the end, because the space above the tire is not that much and you need to unscrew the top of the damper and then do the adjustment and screw the top again (I am talking about the shaft being mounted on the upper holder) and it is very tight around there, because the damper is very close to the inner part of the fender. Taking then out may be faster for you....... yes, you have the sway, but you can always invert the bolts, so you slide out the bolt just enough for the damper to come out (lower bolts), but do not take them off completely, so the links for the sway stay there...... then slide back while working on the rebound outside. The problem may arise if you do one corner at a time. If you lift the left just enough to work under the fender, but keep the right on the ground, the sway may load enough so you will have hart time sliding out the lower bolt. You have to try that first and see. If it is too loaded, then have to slide the bolt out before you lift the vehicle, then slide back, but with the damper out of the loop and then lift. 


_Modified by pyce at 3:44 PM 8-10-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (Maverick99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Maverick99* »_
Do I have to completely remove the rear shocks to adjust the Koni's or can I just undo the top 2 bolts and then undo the bumpstops to adjust the rears. It seems such a pain to have to take apart the bottom bolts, especially since I have a sway bar attached. 
Alex.......how rough is the ride in the rear at 3/4 turn. I believe the garage that installed mine set mine one full turn and I am finding the ride rough, especially with the softer Eibach Pro-kit springs which are probably not strong enought to allow the dampers to fully rebound after successive hits. 

I think as Peter suggested it's much easier to remove them all. If you find a lift somewhere its not hard to do.
I first had mine at 1 turn or 50% stiffness and it was much stiffer than Bilstein and was not comfy enough for our streets, I then put them at 3/4 of a turn, 37% stiffness and they are very nice right now, not too hard and not too soft. BTW, this is on Sofsport and Eibach might need different setting.


----------



## Godlike (Mar 18, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (alexb75)*

someone should sticky this thread... 
or maybe clean it up and then sticky it..


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (Godlike)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Godlike* »_someone should sticky this thread... 
or maybe clean it up and then sticky it..









Agreed. I asked John to add a link in the suspension FAQ (which is sticky)


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (phatvw)*

Hey everyone.
I am finally back http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Before I left I was a little disappointed with the Sofsport+Koni, I was probably expecting too much too soon. I have been driving the car for about a week now and I can say that this setup is very very nice. 
The ride is finally EXACTLY the way I want it, firm but not harsh. I have them set at 1 turn front and 3/4 turn rear and it seems to be THE setting for decent handling while providing a good ride. I just test drove my sister's BMW 325 and I can say that my ride is fairly close to BMW's ride on 16 inch wheels. It's a firm ride, very forgiving on small bumps, controlled on mid-size bumps, and fairly stiff for large bumps (probably bumpstops). The ride is not bouncy, when I hit bumps mid corner the car is still planted and doesn’t lose traction (it used to) and overall it feels like the way it should have been from factory.
Handling is a little bit different. I guess I now have learned how to drive it properly. I have a pretty bad alignment now, so it toes to the right which affects the handling, but I can say that it's fairly close if not better than Bilstein setup. 
Undoubtedly, the Bilstein+Neuspeed Sport had better turn-in, and maybe a little more fun to drive (on smooth surfaces), so Bilstein was faster in lane change situations and I suspect in slalom. However, the Sofsport+Koni setup handles better on highway exists, sharp corners, 90 degree turns, and probably around a track (will know for sure in 2 weeks). 
Now, I am in the process of setting it up for track. I have asked in racing forum, but haven't had much help. Anyone has an idea on what setting should I use? Mike suggested 75% stiff all around? Do u guys think that's good? Should I set both rear/front shocks to one stiffness or should I have them at different settings to reduce understeer?! If so, what's a good compromise?


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (alexb75)*

Alex, glad you are back! Hope you had a blast trip and enjoyed the stay there









_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_.....Undoubtedly, the Bilstein+Neuspeed Sport had better turn-in, and maybe a little more fun to drive (on smooth surfaces), so Bilstein was faster in lane change situations and I suspect in slalom. However, the Sofsport+Koni setup handles better on highway exists, sharp corners, 90 degree turns, and probably around a track (will know for sure in 2 weeks)........

Only one comment here ...... The better turn-in with the Bilsteins may as well be from the fact that your car was right on the bilstein's internal buffers (front) and your stock bump-stops (rear). A situation you do not have anymore. Try putting double-buffer in the front (two stock on top of each other) and I guarantee you will have an amazing turn in with your current setup!







When you limit your suspension travel in curve, the feeling is outstanding, but as you said - fun on smooth roads.... and where are they? In Denmark for sure, but not here







As for the track, Eli at Shine was saying once they got good results with 100% stiff on the front and 1/4 turn back from full stiff on the rear. Cost nothing to try it.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex, glad you are back! Hope you had a blast trip and enjoyed the stay there








Only one comment here ...... The better turn-in with the Bilsteins may as well be from the fact that your car was right on the bilstein's internal buffers (front) and your stock bump-stops (rear). A situation you do not have anymore. 

Thnx. That could and is most probably is the reason. But, what's important is the end result and the consequences. It has fast turn-in at cost of ride comfort.

_Quote »_
As for the track, Eli at Shine was saying once they got good results with 100% stiff on the front and 1/4 turn back from full stiff on the rear. Cost nothing to try it. 

Interesting. I was told to stiffen the rear more to lower the understeer... I guess I will probably set the rear to 75% (1.5 turn) and then play with front. What do u guys think?


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Interesting. I was told to stiffen the rear more to lower the understeer... What do u guys think?
Good for handling, but flies in the face of comfort - decisions, decisions ....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_Good for handling, but flies in the face of comfort - decisions, decisions ....

But this is for track. Although I still have to drive for one hour to get there!


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (alexb75)*

Alex, the rear is kind of "light", relatively speaking of course, and the 80-85% stiff suggestion may be such because anyhting after that (stiffer than that) will keep the wheel off the ground as soon as you look at the curve. Let's do not forget that the front and rears are, after all, different entities. I mean, 50% front may not do the same effect on the front as 50% rear would do to the rear. Anyway, I think, unless you find someone with your exact same combo-car-tires-etc. you better hit the track with whatever setting you have now and THEN experiment on the track, so you see for yourself what gives what........ but I guess you will come and say that you will not have time on the track to adjust the rears. Well, why don't you call Dick or Eli and talk to them. Tell them you do not have the Shine thing, but they do have a lot of experience with Konis and tracks, so they will give you probably much better answers and reasons behind those answers than all of us here...


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Well, why don't you call Dick or Eli and talk to them. Tell them you do not have the Shine thing, but they do have a lot of experience with Konis and tracks, so they will give you probably much better answers and reasons behind those answers than all of us here...
Much better advice than I could give ...














These guys know how to win, and aren't shy about giving advice http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Only one comment here ...... The better turn-in with the Bilsteins may as well be from the fact that your car was right on the bilstein's internal buffers (front) and your stock bump-stops (rear). A situation you do not have anymore. 

Cant have yer cake and eat it eh?
I miss the turn in on my A2 with the taller springs - but not when the road is rough








I was beginning to think that the handling on my A2 was only "so-so" with the new "lifted but stiff" setup. Then I had to drive the wife's Acura and my 4Runner for a week when the Golf was awaiting an alignment... maybe the current setup I have is a reasonable comprimise


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (ewongkaizen)*

kaizen.... very good point! Actually, glad you came in, as if I remember correctly, you went from shorter to taller front on THE SAME dampers, so who else than you could comment on the "better turn in" and why is that happening with shorter springs. Thanks for pointing it out. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_kaizen.... very good point! Actually, glad you came in, as if I remember correctly, you went from shorter to taller front on THE SAME dampers, so who else than you could comment on the "better turn in" and why is that happening with shorter springs. Thanks for pointing it out. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Hey Peter, I remember u set ur shocks to full stiff all around once, right? It was performing really well, right?


----------



## TurboGTI2003 (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (alexb75)*

I have koni front and rear and shine 225/180 and run front 100% full stiff. I need to take the rear out and readjust it and make it stiffer though.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (TurboGTI2003)*

Alex, 100% stiff makes nothing else but killing a lot of suspension travel. It kind of "suffocates" the springs and it feels like they lose half of their previous travel. Needless to say, it may not be nice on bad roads. On good roads thought, the car feels very flat, like there is not suspension. It "feels" great, but I am not sure it is great (for street use, that is). I personally have better results (on my roads) with softer settings. It helps me to feel more what is going on between the tire and the surface. I have not posted for long time about my experiments, but I continue trying things on the background. It just happens that there is nothing new to report, as all the stuff was said by Winston long time ago when he had his Koni on stock springs. I am just re-discovering his steps as to gain feel for them and put real life meaning behind the words he wrote. I can tell that the car is currently on 0% rebound front and rear (yeah, basically full soft) and had been like this for very long time, on different wheel sizes and tires. I find it to be the best daily driver this way, and guess that would be the final. The important part here to say is that the Koni offer very interesting results on the first 1/4 to 1/2 turn! Something I ignored before, going by 1/2 turns all the time. This of course, if you have softer springs like mine now. Would be interesting to see what you get if you ever decide to try full soft all around. You may be nicely surprised.







..... For a track use and full stiff, you will tell us when you come back


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*

The 1/2 turn, 1/4 turn is totally true as I improved my ride comfort DRAMATICALLY when I made the rears softer by 1/4 of a turn. I could have done a 1/2 turn, but 1/4 was ALL I NEEDED. Bascially, Konis are very sensetive.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_kaizen.... very good point! Actually, glad you came in, as if I remember correctly, you went from shorter to taller front on THE SAME dampers, so who else than you could comment on the "better turn in" and why is that happening with shorter springs. Thanks for pointing it out. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

yup.
Went to a 3/4" taller front spring (via a dead coil) and 3/4" spacers in the rear. 
Turn in is NOT as "crisp" as it once was. But IMHO thats becuase its no longer riding on the bumpstops.
Now at one point I thought the turn in was "awful" until I drove the wifes Acura Legend Sedan, my 4Runner (which has uprated torsion bars), Moms Volvo S70 and Dads Volvo 240.
Actually the 240 is pretty durned good - but it has an OEM front sway bar (its rear drive), Bilstien HDs and of course it has no front drive axles, so I guess the Ackerman can be set sharper w/o worring about the torque steer effects..
After I got the VW back from the alignment shop (tech was on vacation) I found its handling to be IMHO a really good comprimise. The turn in isnt "rail" like, but I can bash through pot holes and not bottom out.
Now if some one could make it "active" so it was "bump stop hard" ONLY of there was a certian amount of steering angle....

On a related note - Sport Compact Car crew DITCHED the Praxis setup. They found it not good for the street! See the latest issue about the matte black WRX


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_ ....Now if some one could make it "active" so it was "bump stop hard" ONLY of there was a certain amount of steering angle......

Experiment with bump stops! It is really great way to get exactly what you are looking for (or at least as close as it can get for cheap) ...... the length, the strength and the progressiveness of the buffer can be tailored with few experiments and you can really dial it nicely to get very close to where you wish. You are saying "certain amount of steering" that usually corresponds to certain amount of leaning (rolling), so you tailor the buffers in a way that get in touch only at those specific rolls angles...... It is really nothing new, neither sophisticated and some will say that it is not really the ultimate solution, but it is something you can do on your own and costs very little and the fun part is - you are involved in the testing and cutting, etc. And you can have more than one solution, so to please you in specific situations (like track day, mountain dirt road drive, long comfy cruise with full car, etc). In the beginning of this thread I hated the buffers, now they are my best friend


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Catching up with Peter: Bumpstops? Or Springs?..... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Experiment with bump stops! snip

Im *assuming* that the "car like turn in was due to the FRONT strut riding on the stops. Bilstien HDs have an inverted design and thus no access to the bum stop in front








But in the rear - Yeah I guess I could experiment.
What I meant by active was that the shocks would stiffen only if there were later G forces (aka turning) but not if you were goind straight...
I'll get to the bump stop experiemnts - after I finishe parting the 85 thats soaking up the garage spot at my Parent's house


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Koni Red vs. Yellow ....*

Have been trying to get some damper comparisons from different manufacturers, in an attempt to do some sort of a chart, so we can have some sort of a list for different dampers, organized according to performance (compression, rebound values, etc) and run into this pretty short but quiet clear comparison between Koni Red (Special) and Yellow (Sport). The words are interesting to read, but the most interesting part is the graph, that shows pretty well the range where both operate. It is very visible the quiet good amount of overlap that there is between the two...... 









So, we both (Winston and I) and few others too, finally settled on the very low range of rebound that the Yellow offer. On relatively soft springs (like the stock sets) we found out, through these pages, that the best over all compromises (some comfort and some "performance") are between the 0% stiff and 25% stiff on the Yellow...... The graph above makes me think that perhaps the Red (Specials) could be a better choice for a "GT" setup. Reason is, IF the graph is correct and fully represents the real life dynamics, we can clearly see how 100% stiff on the red corresponds at about 30% stiff on the Yellow, which is the upper limit where we would go with a GT setup anyway, so the Red can "meet" the upper limit rebound requirement, but at the same time, they can go lower (on 0% rebound), so perhaps it could please even wider range of people with very bad roads, ot perhaps bigger wheels, performance tires, etc.......... Just a thought


----------



## resinguy (Apr 25, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*

Peter, this might be a moot point. I believe you can only get the Koni Sport - Yellow for the A4 chassis. Red is not offered.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (resinguy)*

True, did not know that..... Called Koni NA and they said no more Red (Specials) for A4. But the good part is that the Yellow can be rebuild (revalved) to match the Red as they know the spex. It comes for about 100$ per damper. Guess at that point would be nice to extend the range and include the lowest the Red could go to the highest the Yellow could go. Well, the "master" was not there, so I will call back tomorrow and talk to him, so we see what he says. Let's see what else we can find.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*

That's interesting. I find that I can dial the Koni's to 1.5 turn and still have decent comfort on the street. I however cannot do more than 3/4 turn in the rear for decent comfort.
Also, I tried to soften the front while keeping the rear at 3/4 turn. I could lessen the understeer by doing that, but get too much body roll, as well as different front to rear characteristic which actually hurst comfort. What I have noticed is that eventhough the front won't be as stiff as 3/4 turn rear, until 1.5 turns... BUT the rate of suspension move (frequency) is equal at around 1 to 1 1/4 turn front. 
What I mean is that if I have my front at a softer setting (like 1/2 turn) with rears at 3/4 turn, I get less understeer and obviously front is softer so a little better initial impact comfort, however, the front moves at a different rate than rear which makes the whole car bounce... hence lower comfort.








The sweetspot for me is at 1 turn front and 3/4 turn rear which creates a very stable balanced firm ride... with more understeer than softer front







I guess the cure is a RSB!!!


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

Hey guys, I just dialed the rear and front to 1.5 turns (75%). IT IS AMAZING. For the first time since I had the Konis I can sense amazing handling. The car has MUCH LESS understeer, I turn the traction control off and can make the rear kick in a corner... it's GREAT!!! 
The ride in the back also is not that bad! I can live with it, only when you come off a big bump the impact is harsh. I think I could have dialed it all-stiff for track. Will see how does it do tomorrow....


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

Is this thread dead or everyone's on vacation? 
Anyhow, I raced today... here's the link of a quick write up:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...08676
Let me know what u guys think. I was quite ok, but extreme body roll was a big problem.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Is this thread dead or everyone's on vacation? 


I've been on vacation! 6940 miles, 16 states, and a truly impressive collection of insect life in the radiator and engine compartment. Will post things later this month; right now I'm mostly trying to recover. Cheers, and have a great semester!
- W


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Anyhow, I raced today... here's the link of a quick write up:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...08676
Let me know what u guys think. I was quite ok, but extreme body roll was a big problem. 

Hi Alex,
Just read your race thread, and wanted to send you a very quick (short!) note:
I stood right behind Dick Shine when he measured the front SofSports, and they came in somewhere in the 145 lb/in range (with the dead coils open); the 220 lb/in figure Neuspeed cites applies only when all the dead coils are closed. On my car ('00 GTI 1.8T) none of the coils were closed in static loading, and the spring rate felt softer than stock (which, upon measuring, they turned out to be). With the front SofSports, my car rolled much, much more than they did with the Shine fronts (which are around 255 lb/in, despite their 225 designation). Compared with stock springs, my car (on front SofSports) rolled as much as stock in mild corners, then stiffened up in harder cornering. End result was moderate roll.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*

But u had VR6 springs on ur car (right?), so coils may not be closed properly. These springs however feel softer than the sport I had before... where they're supposed to be the same rate, cannot do apple to apple comparison as I change the shocks too.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_But u had VR6 springs on ur car (right?), so coils may not be closed properly. 

No, it turns out that VR6 and 4-cyl front SofSports are the same spring, despite different catalogue numbers (my SofSports had 4-cyl markings regardless). No idea what your Sports were like, though I imagine you might have had considerable stiffening from your bumpstops.
Sorry Alex -- 1:15 AM here on East Coast; have to sign off!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*

Hola, Winston! Glad to hear you are back, save and sound and ready to continue our "going in circles" favorite past time








There are several things that I tried for the last few weeks, but perhaps would wait till get some comparison results and then post some observations. As for now it could be little misleading, so we better keep it off line, but just to let everybody know where we are thinking to go next is to explore little bit more in depth the dampers, and most of all the rear dampers. But instead of the usual "bolt it on the car and see what happens" I was thinking to try to make it little bit more technical and more objective as comparison, so the dampers would go one by one on the same shock dyno, so we can have some graphs to compare and perhaps understand more where specific damper will "shine" more than another and try to create some simple guideline for combinations of off-the-shelf dampers and existing springs. So, I got a set of almost brand new OE dampers (front and rear) with about 10K miles on them (and if you guys think they are not new enough, perhaps I can borrow almost brand new set from somewhere for the test), then we have the Bilstein Sport (and I am trying had to borrow a set of HDs, so we can settle once and forever the issue whether they are the same valving or not!) and then we have our Koni Yellows, plus I just got two sets of Bilstein TC, the one advertised as standard and the one advertises as "sport", so we can see where these two stand in the mix.... more next week


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_plus I just got two sets of Bilstein TC, the one advertised as standard and the one advertises as "sport", so we can see where these two stand in the mix.... more next week









Woah! There is a sport valved Bilstein TC? Hmmm.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (briang)*

Brian, I do not know...... there is so much conflicting info on those TC, so perhaps some of it has to be wrong in therms for the rest to be right. The funny part is that Bilstein themselves CAN do a shock dyno but they rather not to (!?) .... at least this is what I was told on the phone. Why not? It is beyond my mind why they would tell then can, but they will not...... rather funny. But guess what, if they do not want, then we want...... Things like this piss me off big time, like we are trying to "steal" some nuclear formula here. They rather tell me that one is stiffer than the other by 10% and the other one is "almost" like stock.... How professional! But basically what we know for sure is that they all have different part numbers, but do look the same outside, so perhaps it must be something different inside and we are going to find out (or at least try to find out) what it is. So, the "normal" TC is for all 4 cylinders and the "sport" TC is for all 4 cylinders with Sport Package. The latter is also sold for VR6 owners and that is all I got so far. The rest after the dyno.....


----------



## roscoe13 (Jun 8, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (briang)*


_Quote, originally posted by *briang* »_Woah! There is a sport valved Bilstein TC? Hmmm.

As I understand it, the only difference between the regular TCs and the 'sport' TCs is the length, the sports are designed for lowered cars, end the non-sports for stock ride height...
Peace


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_........So, I got a set of almost brand new OE dampers (front and rear) with about 10K miles on them (and if you guys think they are not new enough, perhaps I can borrow almost brand new set from somewhere for the test), then we have the Bilstein Sport (and I am trying had to borrow a set of HDs, so we can settle once and forever the issue whether they are the same valving or not!) and then we have our Koni Yellows, plus I just got two sets of Bilstein TC, the one advertised as standard and the one advertises as "sport", so we can see where these two stand in the mix.... more next week









Excellent, Peter!! It'd be fantastic to actually have some hard, apples-to-apples comparison data! Are the OEM shocks from your TDI? Not to add unnecessarily to your workload (you're doing us all an amazing favour doing these tests), but if you happen to get hold of a variety of OEM shocks (or even OEM parts numbers), I've been wondering if the OEM shock valving varies as much as the OEM spring rates do....








Question for everybody: do you folks want a quick technical analysis of the Neuspeed SofSport front spring? I have the spring sitting in front of me, along with the partial measurements we took off of it at Dick Shine's shop, plus a little spreadsheet model of its expected spring rate. It's not much, but it might be helpful for people considering the spring in the future.....
cheers


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*

Hey Winston, I would be interested in that. I have the new red ones and they look totally different. Can u measure the coils, so I can do the same? I really wanna compare the two springs, I have a suspicion that the newer red ones are totally different.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_..... do you folks want a quick technical analysis of the Neuspeed SofSport front spring? ......

If you do so, then I will send you a box with springs for analysis







Are you game? ...... BTW, I think we can locate a set of dampers from Jetta WE, so we all know it is the "sport suspension" vs. some TDI and VR6. I think Charles should have his old dampers, even if they have at least 70K on them. Perhaps we can compare an old vs. new damper, so we see how much they do really give up with time, etc....
Now, I guess the dyno shop will know what to do, but just in case, shall we put a list of things ot be done while there? I do not have experience with this type of dyno and can only guess that they bolt the damper and do compress and extend it starting from zero and accelerating to certain limit, while recording the forces needed to do so through the whole range. this way we get a graph like the one posted near the top of this page, so we can how the damper acts at specific speeds, etc....... If all that is correct, then what else is there to record, to take notes of? Like for example external temperature or perhaps shall I ask them to perform the test several times, so we can record how much the specific damper "fades" with temperature? Is there any known protocol to follow, something that everyone agrees on, so test is valid for everyone. Thanks....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
Now, I guess the dyno shop will know what to do, but just in case, shall we put a list of things ot be done while there? I do not have experience with this type of dyno and can only guess that they bolt the damper and do compress and extend it starting from zero and accelerating to certain limit, while recording the forces needed to do so through the whole range. this way we get a graph like the one posted near the top of this page, so we can how the damper acts at specific speeds, etc....... If all that is correct, then what else is there to record, to take notes of? Like for example external temperature or perhaps shall I ask them to perform the test several times, so we can record how much the specific damper "fades" with temperature? Is there any known protocol to follow, something that everyone agrees on, so test is valid for everyone. Thanks....

Hi Peter,
No further thoughts on testing protocol -- you seem to have it covered pretty well (though if the repeated tests can be alternated (i.e., test shock #1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then #1 again, then 2, etc., as opposed to test 1,1,1, then 2,2,2), that'd help compensate for any heating up / drift of the text rig itself). The only part that has me a little uneasy is what are the correct velocities at which to measure -- presumably the test rig has different settings for long vs. short travel, fast vs. slow-bouncing suspensions? If so, we need to figure out what velocity / stroke regime is appropriate (though if the test rig only has one setting, we're all set!). It'd also be good to mark the shocks beforehand so as to indicate the "at rest" position of the shaft when mounted on the car, just in case there's any stroke dependence (I know there isn't supposed to be, but we might as well be consistent about it!).
I've never seen a shock dyno, but here's some background info that may or may not prove helpful. It's from pp.803-805 of the Milliken text, and I'll just quote it verbatim:
"MEASUREMENT OF DAMPER CHARACTERISTICS
"In the past is has not been practical to use constant velocity tests to measure damper properties. The conventional damper tester couples one end of the unit to the throw on a crankshaft and a technique using "carding" loops is used. The damper is subjected to a series of sinusoidal motions all with the same amplitude but at increasing frequencies. A load cell is fitted to measure the damper force. In modern systems, the force-displacement data are captured by a high-speed data acquisition and analysis system such as the Anthony Best Dynamics "CARDS" equipment. A graph is plotted of the force generated against displacement; each test results in a single loop. A typical series...........For a particular loop corresponding to sinusoidal motion at frequency, f, the peak velocity (at zero displacement) is given by
V = 2pi * omega * amplitude
And the corresponding bounce and rebound forces can be read from the plot......In this way, the complete damper characteristic.....can be built up.
"Recently, the classic crankshaft test rig has been replaced by an electrohydraulic servo cylinder on some test machines. Cylinder position can be slaved to a variable-frequency constant-amplitude triangle wave. This test set-up generated constant velocities for essentially all of the chosen stroke, allowing data at each chosen velocity to be taken directly."
* * * * *
So in short, there appears to be at least two types of shock dynos (the Milliken book was written in 1995), with the newer type producing data that's much faster to interpret. The old type will have a crankshaft of some sort, whilst the new one will have a (presumably shiny) hydraulic cylinder. Hopefully your test dyno will be one of the new ones!
In a related note, the formula for critical damping (which is the metric for specifying damping characteristics) is:
Critical Damping Coeff = 2 * sqrt( spring rate * sprung mass)
Because of the square root relationship, small changes in damping rate have a big effect on ride comfort. For example, if the Konis truly have a 2X adjustment range, that means they can accommodate a 4X variation in spring rate (assuming constant car weight). Put it another way, when you went from your ~130 lb/in stock TDI spring to a ~165 lb/in VR6 spring, the 27% increase in spring rate necessitated only a 13% increase in damping. So relatively small damper changes are pretty important -- hopefully this test rig of yours has reasonably high precision!
(Or to phrase things in yet another way -- if a shock like the TC truly has a damping coefficient that's 10% stiffer than stock, then that 10% should make a quite noticeable difference in ride & handling....)
Anyway, Peter -- thanks for doing these tests, and looking forward to your results!!
- W


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_.....The only part that has me a little uneasy is what are the correct velocities at which to measure -- presumably the test rig has different settings for long vs. short travel, fast vs. slow-bouncing suspensions? If so, we need to figure out what velocity / stroke regime is appropriate (though if the test rig only has one setting, we're all set!).....

Very interesting point! I have been wondering about how can we do so (to record velocities) on at least the rears (where there is more space to stick equipment) and would be nice if you (or anyone else) can give some suggestions....... Ideally, we have something to bolt on the upper part (where the bump stop is) and something else on the damper's body, so these two travel against (and opposite) each other and from there we somehow record the distance and speed, and therefore we have acceleration, deceleration. This way also, we can put the same equipment on our cars and drive around, then compare graphs, so we can finally compare accurately the different nature of our road surfaces. Basically, from there we can determine where is area "A" and area "B" (if you look at the Koni chart above) and also perhaps understand better where do we need to work on gaining more comfort, etc. And then we also see exactly how the dyno results do apply to our daily drive, so we know which part of the charts to pay more attention to........ Any ideas?


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_
.....I have been wondering about how can we do so (to record velocities) on at least the rears.......somehow record the distance and speed, and therefore we have acceleration, deceleration....so we can finally compare accurately the different nature of our road surfaces. Basically, from there we can determine where is area "A" and area "B" (if you look at the Koni chart above) and also perhaps understand better where do we need to work on gaining more comfort, etc. And then we also see exactly how the dyno results do apply to our daily drive, so we know which part of the charts to pay more attention to........ Any ideas? 

Whooooboy....this is decidedly getting outside my areas of expertise, but I think (given my very limited experience with this sort of measurement) that you might be best off with an accelerometer (i.e., instead of measuring distance and velocity between chassis and shock mount, measure the acceleration of the strut mount relative to the earth frame of reference).
The disadvantage to this technique is that you don't directly measure what you want to measure: instead of getting the shock velocity directly, you have to assume that the chassis stays more or less steady on fast bumps (i.e., assume the top mount of the strut is fixed), after which you can integrate the acceleration (of the lower mount) vs. time to get the velocity. (For our purposes, this is probably a reasonable approximation -- if you want to get really exact, you can mount one accelerometer on the shock mount, one on the car body, and take the difference between the two.) For the slow bumps (or more accurately, for the low-shock-speed ride motions), you'd mount the accelerometer on the chassis (e.g., just hold it inside the car!), and similarly integrate wrt time to get the shock velocities.
The advantage of the accelerometer approach (again, to my limited knowledge here) is simply that of cost and packaging ease. Here's a commercially prepackaged accelerometer (either the low-g or 25-g model might work):
http://www.vernier.com/probes/....html
....and here are more obscure, cheaper possibilities:
http://www.digikey.com/scripts...40836
To use them, you'd have to run a cable from a laptop (in the car, presumably







) down to the sensor on the shock, so it'd be a bit Mickey Mouse, but doable. I don't know if the software comes with the sensor, but presumably somebody in your company would be able to help you with such things....
(A further advantage to the accelerometer approach is that once you have the device, you can use it to measure cornering g's, ride comfort, acceleration, braking, etc. as well -- basically, you'd just be putting together a lab version of a g-Analyst type of device. That way you can make a change to your setup, drive at a set speed down your favorite test road, and quantitatively measure your ride comfort, etc.....)

If you don't like the accelerometer idea, I'm not really sure what to suggest. There are position / displacement sensors, but the mechanical ones (e.g., 
http://www.spaceagecontrol.com/ptmain.htm
might not have the rapid response you need to measure the jolting of a fast-vibrating shock absorber, while the laser rangefinders:
http://world.keyence.com/products/displace/lk.html
are suspiciously non-priced on the web --- I suppose a laser device might work well if it's affordable, but I get suspicious of products where you have to fill out a Price Quote Request form before they'll tell you how much it costs!....
Anyway, I'll ask around; hope the above is at least somewhat helpful. Cheers!
- W


_Modified by Ceilidh at 10:54 AM 9-10-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- detailed description*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Hey Winston, I would be interested in that. I have the new red ones and they look totally different. Can u measure the coils, so I can do the same? I really wanna compare the two springs, I have a suspicion that the newer red ones are totally different. 

Ok, here's a rough analysis of the Neuspeed SofSport front spring. I'll do it in two installments: the first (primarily for Alex) is a straight physical description; the second (for those considering using such springs) compares it to OEM and Shine.
Just to give a heads up for the second installment (and to repeat something we've already said, but which seems to have gotten lost): the SofSport is not even remotely equivalent to the Shine spring. It's a fine spring, but the intended usage and performance appears to be completely different.
Anyway, for Alex, here's a physical description:
CLASSIFICATION:
Neuspeed "SofSport" front spring
Black colour
Markings: "Neuspeed"; "130851", "55.10.52F"
Fitment (according to Neuspeed): front spring for 4-cyl and VR6 Golf/GTI/Jetta IV "SofSport" spring kits, as well as for various other VW models.
DIMENSIONS:
Length (unloaded) 12"
Coil Diameter 5.054" (centerline of wire) ; ~5.5" total diameter
Wire Gauge 0.498"--0.509" (my calipers are sloppy)
Background Note: springs were selected from bin showing total of 1/8" max variation in unfitted length; these springs were the tallest; average springs are 1/16" shorter, shortest are 1/8" shorter.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Ends: plain (unground, unflattened)
Total Number of Coils 6.58
Number of "Pigtail" Coils ~1.75
Number of Lower "Dead" Coils ~ 0.65 coils
Number of Progressive Coils ~ 0.65
In plain English:
The front SofSport has 4 distinct sections. At the top is a pigtail section for mounting into the upper strut bearing assembly; at the bottom is a short "dead coil" section apparently intended to be squeezed flat at static load. Below the pigtail is a cylindrical main spring section with constant-spaced coils (i.e., a straight forward constant-rate spring section), with the bottom-most coil smoothly and gradually merging into the final dead coil section. This merging area functions as a short progressive section, almost all of which (judging from the paint damage from coil binding) appears to be used up at extreme jounce compression.
As Mounted on 2000 GTI:
Dead Coil just barely open when car is stationary (visually closed, but can be moved by hand)
Ride Height: 14 7/8" wheel center to fender lip (actually 15 1/4" with 3/8" metal spacer on my car)
Odd Quirk: when Koni front rebound damping set too high (e.g., above 1 turn), rebound "jacking" effect partially closed the dead coils when driven on straight Interstates -- result was low-pitched harmonic whining/groaning sound from spring coils vibrating against each other. Effect disappeared with reduced damping.
Next installment -- practical implications


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- detailed description (Ceilidh)*

Thanks Winston, I will get under my car to do some comparison measurements some time this weekend. I however have not experienced what you did with Konis at higher rebound setting.
BTW, take a look at these pics, these look physically different and I don't have dead coil (no coils touch each other)?! 
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...2.htm


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- practical points*

And, now, here are the practical implications:
1) ****The SofSports and the Shine springs are in two completely different classes.****
Many people on the Vortex advise the newbies that these two springs are roughly comparable (typical quote: "...you can go with Shine or SofSport; both are about the same rate (225/180 vs. 220/160), the main difference being that the SofSports are a half inch lower..."). Please correct these posts whenever you see them. The two springs are radically different in design, performance, and roadholding, and while both are excellent springs for their intended uses, a person who will be happy with one spring will probably *not* be happy with the other. They are very different products.
2) The confusion over the Shine vs. SofSport arises because of their similar "ratings" on the spec sheet: 225lb/in for the Shine front, vs. 220 lb/in for the SofSport front. Both of these "ratings" exist for legitimate, understandable reasons (that is, both companies are extremely reputable, and neither is even remotely engaged in an attempt to mislead anyone), but in practical terms the Shine is much stiffer, and the SofSport is much softer, than those numbers suggest.
3) We have talked in the past of how the Shine 225's are actually close to 260 lb/in in true rate (257lb/in in the case of my car)....
4) With the SofSports, the true rate is much trickier to nail down. The major complicating factor is that the spring is progressive (and before anyone fires off a post insisting that none of these "progressive" springs is truly progressive, please note that (together with Peter) I used to be one of the people leading that particular charge : much to my surprise, this SofSport spring is progressive, albeit in a rather strange way.
(Peter, the SofSport measurements Dick sent you don't show the progressiveness because we ran out of travel on the test rig at 695 lbs of force, at which the dead coils were still fully open.)
5) The "220 lb/in" rating for the SofSport is the stiffness of the spring when loaded (according to Neuspeed) in the 976 lb to 1194 lb range. This is an appropriate loading if you're interested in the stiffness of the outside front spring during a hard cornering maneuver. To put it in context, however, note that the total front corner weight (sprung plus unsprung) of a GTI 1.8T is listed by VW as 888 lb, whilst a VR6 GTI shows 963 lb (again, sprung plus unsprung). If we deduct a conservative 100 lb off each corner to account for the unsprung weight, that means that the front corner loading during a straight line drive is only about 790 lb for the GTI, and 860 for the VR6. Thus if the SofSports are progressive, then the 220 lb/in figure will not apply in gentle driving.
6) In fact, my SofSports measured out at 146 lb/in on Dick Shine's tester (compared with 148 lb/in on my stock springs, and with the 257 lb/in on the Shine 225 -- all of these measurements were performed on the same testing machine, so they are self-consistent). This is the rate my 2000 GTI 1.8T experienced when driven on a straight smooth road, and it is the rate that you get when all of the "dead" and progressive coils are open.
What would be the rate on a VR6? We can take a reasonable guess: I've built a spreadsheet model for the SofSport spring, and used the 146 lb/in measurement to calibrate it. VR6 owners say that their dead coils are closed, so if we close it up in the spreadsheet model, we get a rate of 177 lb/in -- a little stiffer than the 160 lb/in or so that VR6 cars appear to have as stock.
What does this mean? Well, those who report excellent ride comfort from their SofSports (at least at the front) are not imagining things -- the ride rate on a straight and level road is very close to stock. As for those who report terrible ride comfort: either it's their shocks, or their tires....
7) Now, about the progressiveness: most springs that are advertised as "progressive" are (judging from web photographs) straight linear springs with a stack of closely-spaced dead coils at one end. When the spring is loaded, the dead coils close up, and we wind up with a constant rate (linear) spring. That is not what's happening here.
The SofSport front has a dead coil section, consisting of a closely and evenly spaced coil section, but that section is very short. It's only 1.5 coils long, and half of that (0.75 coils) are in the part of the spring that's supported by the spring mount (i.e., it's part of the spring base, and doesn't actually hold up the car).  Hence the "parallel" dead coil section is effectively only .75 coils long. Close that up, and the spring rate climbs from 146 to 177 lb/in -- not up to 220 lb/in.
Above the dead coil section is (and this is the only spring we've seen that has this feature) an area where the coil spacing very, very gradually widens out. At the beginning of this section, the spacing is 1.34"; at the end, it's 2.31". This section is about 1 coil or so (the end of it is so gradual it's hard to tell where exactly it stops), and it's a true progressive section.
8) On my spring (driven on a 2000 1.8T for about 2 weeks before I took it off), there is paint damage on the coils that show exactly how much of the spring became "dead" while driving. The damage is progressive: it's reasonably clear on the dead coil (which would have closed up as soon as I hit bumps or even a modest corner), and then gradually fades away on the higher coils (meaning those coils closed up infrequently. If I find the last little bit of damage, corresponding to a bump hit while cornering very hard, and then if I enter that into the spreadsheet model, I can calculate what the maximum effective spring rate was on my car: that comes out to 230 lb/in.
Note: the above figure is consistent with my experience. On the biggest hits, on the hardest corners, my car still felt just a little softer on the SofSports than it did on the Shines; in more normal driving, it felt much softer: essentially stock comfort on straight level roads, and somewhere in between stock & Shine on normal bumps, with disproportionate jolting on the bigger bumps.
9) Handling implications: all things being equal, a SofSport-equipped car will roll less than stock, but more than Shine. At maximum effort in a corner, my car rode on a 230 lb/in outside spring, and a 146 lb/in inside spring. As the cornering stiffness of a car is affected as much by the reduction in spring force at the inside wheel as it is by the increased force at the outside wheel, that comes out to an effective spring strength of (230 + 146)/2, or 188 lb/in. Contrast that with the 148 lb/in of my OEM spring, and the 257 lb/in of the Shine -- no wonder why my car (albeit somewhat flatter than stock) seemed to roll far more on the SofSports than they did on the Shines.
(Note: in fact, the SofSports will roll more than the above calculation indicates, because of the gradual ramp-up to the 230 lb/in figure. Also, the same effect will befall even VR6 cars with closed-up dead coils, as the dead coils on the inside spring will open up the moment the car begins to roll.)
10) Conjecture: just what is Neuspeed doing?? PLEASE NOTE that all of the above deals with the SofSport front spring in isolation -- Neuspeed will not even sell you the fronts without the rears, and the springs are emphatically intended to be used as a full set. Those who purchase the full SofSport set generally like them -- and there are good theoretical reasons why that should be so:
The Neuspeed rears (which we did not test) are evidently a fair bit stiffer than stock. When paired with the initially soft SofSport fronts, stiff rears would be expected to lessen the stock understeer in initial roll -- that is, at initial turn in, and in normal street driving (where you don't really really load the car up), the car should be much more neutral and more responsive to the steering wheel. The problem with such a setup, however, is that the car needs a lot of understeer to be forgiving (for untrained drivers) at the limit, and stiffened rears normally would make the car unacceptably tail-happy. With the progressive fronts, however, the front end stiffens up at the limit, which brings stabilizing understeer back into the picture just when it can do the most good.
In short, the SofSport appears to be designed to be a fun street setup. It's initially soft riding (if care is taken in choosing the right shocks), it should have reasonable neutrality in normal driving, and it should be relatively forgiving under duress. So there's no wonder that many people love the setup.
Is it a good ultra-street-performance setup? Absolutely not -- the front is too soft, there's more roll than many would like, and the progressiveness makes the handling less linear than some drivers would prefer. But that's not what Neuspeed appears to have set out to design and sell, and that's why both SofSport and Shine can peaceably coexist -- one is a max performance street setup, the other is a comfortable, moderate package. Both companies deserve to be proud of what they're offering, and both should have very happy customers -- just not the same customers!
Ok, that's all on SofSport -- over to you, Peter, and let's hear about shocks!








- W



_Modified by Ceilidh at 2:13 PM 9-10-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- detailed description (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_Thanks Winston, I will get under my car to do some comparison measurements some time this weekend. I however have not experienced what you did with Konis at higher rebound setting.
BTW, take a look at these pics, these look physically different and I don't have dead coil (no coils touch each other)?! 
http://angelhands-shiatsu.ca/P...2.htm 

Hi Alex,
Alas, the photographs don't show the bottom two coils, which is where all the action takes place; what's visible looks identical to mine (except for the colour







), but I can't see the dead/progressive section. Did you take any pictures of the springs before you mounted them?
(By the way, nice looking car! The stance looks just about perfect -- I can see why you don't want to raise things in front any....







)
- Winston


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- practical points (Ceilidh)*

WOW http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
That was a GREAT Analysis Ceilidh!
(Still very happy with my odd ball Shine setup - gald I didnt go SofSport and glad to hear that Neuspeed appears to actually know what they are making even though the average consumer may not understand what they are buying or need to buy)
Now all I have to do is to get a shine rear bar


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- practical points (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
In short, the SofSport appears to be designed to be a fun street setup. It's initially soft riding (if care is taken in choosing the right shocks), it should have reasonable neutrality in normal driving, and it should be relatively forgiving under duress. So there's no wonder that many people love the setup.


I read your analysis again and have to agree for most part. I however *suspect *that the way it works right now was not by design but was the result of stretching their sport springs.
Ever since I have changed my suspension, I feel that the rear is as stiff or stiffer than before (with sport) but the front is much softer. I can go all the way stiff on the shocks and still have a decent ride. On sports (with Bilstein) however my front was also very stiff and not that comfy on street. Well, ofcourse some of that was because of the Bilstein, but not all. Nuespeed first came with sport springs, then race springs, and then Sofsports. They basically used the same sport springs (220) but stretched it by one inch (or heated up that way)... this in essence created a softer spring for lower loads as dead coils are not utilized until you put quite a bit of load on them as they are more far apart from each other.







Maybe?! 
The reason I say this is that my car on sport was MUCH STIFFER in the front than it is now, but not in the rear. My rear height has been raised by about 0.5" but front has been raised by almost 1"... I had noticeably less body roll on sport, hence I believe they had the deadcoils utilized on normal load as well as during cornering. If I get a chance to put this theory into test, then I will... I have the sports in the garage and can do some measurements, let me know what to measure.
On another note, at the end of day it matter how much faster one is over the other. Mike said he improved his laptime by 1 second when he went from Sofsports to Shine, while he had Shine RSB for both. I think on setups with no RSB, the front springs may play a bigger role than the ones with RSB... Like I am feeling much more body roll with the Sofsports than sport since I don't have a RSB.


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- practical points (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
The reason I say this is that my car on sport was MUCH STIFFER in the front than it is now, but not in the rear. My rear height has been raised by about 0.5" but front has been raised by almost 1"... I had noticeably less body roll on sport, hence I believe they had the deadcoils utilized on normal load as well as during cornering. If I get a chance to put this theory into test, then I will... I have the sports in the garage and can do some measurements, let me know what to measure.


Keep in mind that the sport springs, being 1 inch lower, are far more likely to ride on the bumpstops, thus giving the impression of a stiffer ride. Ultimate performance with that much lowering suffers because you run out of suspension travel. This is why shine is superior to both because it has a much higher wheel rate while keeping the suspension travel. I would still guess that the Sofsport beats the Sport for handling though. It would be an interesting comparison.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: The Neuspeed SofSport front spring -- practical points (phatvw)*

That's why I called this a theory. The bumpstops MAY have played a role, however, I had H&R cupkits at 2" lowering before and they were pretty soft compared to sport, and had more body role! So, the role of bumpstop may be not as big in the front as it is in the rear (I could be wrong).


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_.....but I think (given my very limited experience with this sort of measurement) that you might be best off with an accelerometer.....

Winston, this is simply brilliant!!!! Thank you, thank you very much! Dang, we should have gone this way from day one! This device will save us tons of pages and attempts to describe what it feels with this or that tweak, we will be able finally to communicate scientifically, not by using words (different rulers), but comparing hard data, graphs, real time values! This is fantastic! We can test now different combos of springs AND dampers and compare the graphs in between and finally have some visuals on how much the spring and how much the damper affect specific comfort scenario. Man, we can now really start comparing suspension!!!!! ..... Needless to say I just called them and ordered on. Guys, this thinggie here will make us talk to the same language and finally understand each other, when we say "this is stiff" or "this is comfortable"! I can finally give you a graph from my morning commute, so you all see the vertical G's that I expose my delicate butt daily, LOL







..... Seriously, this is simply brilliant! Graphs, I love graphs! Data, baby, data! Then we can finally line up all the dampers in a graph and see which one provides what, so people can chose according the their needs, etc..... YEAH! New chapter in our miserable experiments is now open! Thank you! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*

Sorry guys, my proposed theory and some of Winston's analysis of the Sofsport doesn't hold water for my setup (red Sofsports). I have my two deadcoils 100% on top of each other on a flat surface!!! 
So, either Winston got VR6 springs (my understanding) or the Black and Red Sofsports are different somehow. I will take pics and part# tomorrow. 
Sofsport 1.8T Part#: 55.10.87
Sofsport VR6 Part#: 55.10.73
So, they are different indeed.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

It was very hard to take pics of the deadcoils but here are some pics:
















The car was NOT flat, it was parked uphill on a driveway (more weight on rear), with wheel turned all the way to the left.
As you can see the two deadcoils at the bottom are on top of each other... The spring has 6 coils with 0.5 pigtail on top, and another half on the bottom (to get installed on the strut). Could not take measurements of the coils, need the right tool.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Dampers Dyno....*

Tomorrow is the day! The guy is ready with the adapter for the upper part, so tomorrow night we dyno! He is actually such a passionate man, so the plans are we stay after they close the shop, so can take apart the dampers and see what can be done to control the parameters. He will try to re-valve, then dyno again, so to see what gives what and I also wanted to take detailed pictures of all components inside, so we can eventually build a virtual model, then perhaps make few animations of what is exactly going inside and how specific parts affect specific parameters, etc..... This is finally getting somewhere and the best part of it all is that this shop is about five blocks from my place, so we can keep working on this while keeping the shipping costs down to zero. So, tomorrow we will have some results on the OE dampers, the Koni Yellows (on several settings) and the Bilstein TC Sport..... I am still in search for at least one rear HD and Sport, and I am sure sooner or later they will come out. Not in a rush anymore, as the dyno we found is near, so the rest can be done anytime later. Perhaps we will know (finally) the real story about HD vs Sport valving


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Dampers Dyno.... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_...... He will try to re-valve, then dyno again, so to see what gives what.....


Re-Valve????!! Is it possible to turn a Koni Yellow into a pseudo Koni Red? Can Peter's shock saga finally be drawing to a successful, happy ending?.....


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_......So, either Winston got VR6 springs (my understanding) or the Black and Red Sofsports are different somehow. I will take pics and part# tomorrow. 
Sofsport 1.8T Part#: 55.10.87
Sofsport VR6 Part#: 55.10.73
So, they are different indeed.


Hi Alex,
Let me explain what's going on with the SofSport 1.8T vs. VR6 parts numbers, and why I (and evidently some others) have been saying the 1.8T and VR6 front SofSports are the same spring:
1) Yes, the catalogue numbers are different, but that's not the issue. Neuspeed in fact seems to use two distinct sets of parts numbers: an internal set they use for their own bookkeeping, and an external set they present to the outside world (note: this is a perfectly legitimate thing for a company to do, as in many situations it reduces confusion for the buyer; Shine, for example, uses a single set of parts numbers for both internal and external use (which is also a legitimate company decision, for obvious reasons), and that's why their "225 lb/in" front spring actually measures out at ~260 lb/in....).
2) My own front SofSport has a part number of "55.10.52F". That's an internal part number (denoting a particular VW front spring) that you will not find on any "application list" made available to consumers.
3) When I got my spring, I was unsure whether it was the correct one (for the above reason), and I telephoned Neuspeed to ask what was going on. (Neuspeed customer service, by the way, has been absolutely first-rate in all my dealings with them -- they've been incredibly informative and helpful.)
4) It was explained to me that parts numbers like the 1.8T's 55.10.87 and the VR6's 55.10.73 (and 55.10.76, which is an alternative number on their website) are numbers for the full kit (i.e., front and rear springs together). In putting together these kits, Neuspeed will choose a front spring and a rear spring from their own extensive selections; each of these front and rear springs will have its own internal part number, and my particular spring was part of a batch that happened to have the internal part printed on them.
5) I next asked the fellow if he could look through the various kits and tell me which ones used my 55.10.52F spring. This was not an easy exercise(!), as it seemed to involve the poor guy's looking back and forth across a whole series of lists and tables, and it took him a while to figure it all out -- but the end result was that the various VR6 and 1.8T kits all used that same 55.10.52F spring.
6) This information didn't seem to jibe with what an earlier Neuspeed rep had told me, in which he had looked up the free spring lengths for the 1.8T and VR6 kits, and it appeared that the VR6 springs were a quarter inch longer. I asked the Neuspeed fellow about that discrepancy, and he replied that it appeared that Neuspeed had originally specced the quarter inch difference to account for the different engine weights, but then the very small difference between the two probably turned out to be not worth the bother. In any case, when a 1.8T or VR6 kit is put together, the kit assembler will simply go to the 55.10.52F bin and pull out a spring -- and thus in practical terms, that can't be any difference between the front springs in those kits.
7) Now, it's possible the fellow I talked to at Neuspeed was somehow in error, and thus I suppose it's possible that the 1.8T and VR6 springs somehow really are different (one way to check would be for someone to order both springs and then simply measure them), but the above is what Neuspeed told me.








Cheers! - C


_Modified by Ceilidh at 11:20 PM 9-14-2004_


----------



## Dog_Eater (May 20, 2003)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

The spacer that is in the front suspension that most people usually take out, would leaving this in effect the softsports dead coil at all? Would the dead coil be more compressed with the spacer in therefor create a higher initial spring rate?

BTW: what is the part numbers for the sport suspension bumpstops?


_Modified by Dog_Eater at 4:25 AM 9-15-2004_


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
As you can see the two deadcoils at the bottom are on top of each other... The spring has 6 coils with 0.5 pigtail on top, and another half on the bottom (to get installed on the strut). Could not take measurements of the coils, need the right tool. 

Hi Alex,
That'd be great if your dead coils are dead! It'd mean you have a static spring rate of about 177 lb/in, instead of the 146 lb/in I had on my car -- much nicer for handling, so congrats on it working out better for you! (It's also quite plausible that your coils touch whilst mine did not, as my car (as mentioned in an earlier post) seems to be unusually light in the front -- on the Shines, I also rode higher than most Shined cars do....)
Just want to confirm something to be sure, however: when you say your dead coils are dead, are you going from a visible inspection, or did you physically grab the coils and test whether they would budge. The coils on my car similarly looked like they were touching (the gap must have been just one or two millimeters), but the tipoff was that I could move them as much as I could move the "live" coils above them. (i.e., they didn't move much, but neither were they rock solid)
Also, to be really sure, you'll want to check the coils with the wheels pointed straight ahead, as turning the wheel hard over will cause some corner jacking (because of the kingpin inclination angle), which complicates things.
Anyway, assuming your coils are truly closed, you should have the same characteristics that the VR6 guys enjoy -- a good, comfortable ride, reduced brake dive, and an amount of roll somewhere in between stock and Shine (though probably closer to the stock end of things), Enjoy!
- C


_Modified by Ceilidh at 11:36 PM 9-14-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*

Hey Winston,
Thanks for the long reply. I wish I took the part# of the springs when I installed them, I cannot seem to see it on the springs when they are installed, if I lift the car up, will take the part# of the front.
The bottom two coils seem to be dead! I am not sure how you want me to check it rather than visually, or by hand. When I put my finger between them, they are tuck against each other... I don't think I can move them but will try. 
I don't have the spacer, so it may also help with the deadcoils staying dead... now we still have two different colored springs which may have different part#, but still need to check it.


----------



## pyce (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

Dog Eater – I have very hard time to believe that particular spacer (because of it’s position) would do something to close the spring. If the spacer was in between the upper and lower part of the spring (like for example a bump stop) than – yes ….. but this spacer is on top of the spring, so all it does is to lift the car some. Imagine the rear spring, it is easier to picture and to go there and observe – if you put a spacer below the spring, all it will do is lift the car by the amount of the spacer’s thickness, but I do not see how it is going to compress more the spring. 
Alex – if you can not see whether the coils are touching, then you can not relay on your fingers either, as they are thicker than the gap Winston is talking about. You have to take a piece of paper and try to fit it in between those coils. You may not be able to see, but you will know if the paper goes through….. then fold the paper to make it thicker and try again, so you get an idea of how much is the gap.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (pyce)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pyce* »_Alex – if you can not see whether the coils are touching, then you can not relay on your fingers either, as they are thicker than the gap Winston is talking about. You have to take a piece of paper and try to fit it in between those coils. You may not be able to see, but you will know if the paper goes through….. then fold the paper to make it thicker and try again, so you get an idea of how much is the gap. 


When there's no gap, how can I fit something in between?! When I put my fingers in there, I can touch both spring together, I didn't mean I could put my finger between them, that's impossible. I can hardly see them so I know they are on top of each other... not sure how else can I explaint it?! 
BTW, I found this http://www.proshocks.com/calcs/coilsprate.htm may help with some spring rate measurement.


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (alexb75)*

Hi Alex,
If you can't get access with a piece of paper, you can reach over the tire when the car is firmly on the ground (small hands help here







), grasp one of the live coils, and push downwards; the coil will give slightly, and that will "calibrate" your fingers so you know what an undead coil (sounds like a horror movie...) feels like. Then grasp one of the "dead coils" and push the same way -- if it's truly dead, it'll feel rock solid and very different from a live coil.
In any case, this is all sort of a moot point (at least in the context of roll stiffness): whether your dead coil has just barely closed or is just shy of closing, once the car starts rolling, you're going to have one spring with opened coils (at ~145 lb/in) and one spring with closed coils (somewhere in the ~175-230 lb/in range, depending upon how much the progressive coil is compressed). That'll give you a net front roll stiffness equivalent to that from straight linear springs of between 160 lb/in to ~190 lb/in, which is more than stock 1.8T (~150 lb/in) and less than Shine (~260 lb/in). Whether your car is heavy enough in front to close the true dead coil mostly affects your straight-ahead ride quality (which apparently is pretty good). So let us know if you definitively determine whether your coils are dead, as it's an interesting datum, but if you can't ascertain for sure, don't sweat it and just enjoy your sweet-looking and sweet-handling car!








- C


_Modified by Ceilidh at 3:06 PM 9-15-2004_


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Red vs. Yellow .... (Ceilidh)*

Ok, I will try to do that. It's pissing rain today, so when it's not as wet.
BTW, one of my friends who was travelling all summer just came back and for the first time took a ride in my car. Even from the passenger's seat, he noticed a difference in the suspension and was like "what have u done to the car, it's amazing"... it was the best compliment I've got since he didn't know anything about my suspension and if I have changed it or not!


----------



## discover_24 (May 28, 2003)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear?????????*

Here's a question that may have already been touched upon, but here goes anyways. Has anyone done something with Koni sports in front and Bilstein HD's in the rear? These would be going with a set of Ground Control Coilover springs that are 250 in front and 200 in the rear.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (discover_24)*


_Quote, originally posted by *discover_24* »_Here's a question that may have already been touched upon, but here goes anyways. Has anyone done something with Koni sports in front and Bilstein HD's in the rear? These would be going with a set of Ground Control Coilover springs that are 250 in front and 200 in the rear.









Peter (pyce) have done something like that, with Bilstein front and Koni rear. He will probably comment but as far as I remember the result was not that great.


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (alexb75)*


_Quote, originally posted by *alexb75* »_
Peter (pyce) have done something like that, with Bilstein front and Koni rear. He will probably comment but as far as I remember the result was not that great.


I just want to add a comment on the ride quality of Bilstein shocks. When I installed them on my Mk3 Jetta the ride was terrible. It wasn't just that you felt every expansion joint on the highway, but when you went slowly over tall speed bumps it felt like the shock didn't want to compress and the rear end of the car was getting tossed in the air. That was when the shocks were brand new. After I put about 3,000 miles on them it was like I had a totally different car. They were much smoother over speed bumps, expansion joints were nothing but a little "thump" as I went over them, and generally it was a nice but firm ride on all road types. And this was not just me getting used to the firmer ride. I was transporting a friend with very bad back pain for treatment, and when the new Bilsteins first went in she could barely tollerate the drive to doctor's office. After the break in period she felt the ride quality was on a par with her brand new MK4 Jetta.
So if you want to get a real feel for the ride quality with Bilstein shocks you may need to put a few more miles on them before deciding if they are right for you.

Bill


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (Stealth Car)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Stealth Car* »_
So if you want to get a real feel for the ride quality with Bilstein shocks you may need to put a few more miles on them before deciding if they are right for you.


Given how monotube shocks are constructed, I doubt that the "seals" wear out that quickly... so
Does the oil "break down" a tad?


----------



## Stealth Car (Oct 3, 2003)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (ewongkaizen)*

I really have no idea why it happened. After the change I happened to come across a post on here talking about a break-in period for Bilsteins, so it seems I'm not the only one who has experienced it. Anyway, the ride and handling are both just what I wanted. I'm using Bilstein HD with H&R O.E. Sport springs. Stock anti-roll bars and new stock suspension bushings from and rear. The ride height is just a litle lower than stock. My goal was to make the car a little taughter handling, get rid of the float going through on ramps, basically the kind of suspension change that VW did when changing the rabbit into the original GTi. 
(BTW - this isn't a terribly stiff suspension setup compared to what some people have, but I still noticed a tremendous difference when a add a Neuspeed front strut bar. Whatever your brand prefernce I can say that a strut bar is money well spent.)


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (ewongkaizen)*

My experience with Bilstein HDs on Stock springs, and Shine springs is consistent with Stealth Car's. They do soften slightly after a few miles, and then they remain very consistent for over 100k miles.


----------



## alexb75 (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (f1forkvr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *f1forkvr6* »_My experience with Bilstein HDs on Stock springs, and Shine springs is consistent with Stealth Car's. They do soften slightly after a few miles, and then they remain very consistent for over 100k miles.

Almost every shock has a break-in period. For instance, on my Koni's it took about 1000 Km for them to break-in, specially rear. It was the same with Bilstein as well. At the end of the day though, a break-in Bilstein rides worse than a break-in Koni


----------



## IndigoBlueWagon (Aug 9, 2004)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (alexb75)*

When I first got my Shine setup it was pretty stiff on expansion joints and tar strips, enough for me to play with tire pressures. I've done two things: put stock rear springs back in for ride height; I was scraping my trailer hitch on speed bumps. The stock wagon rear springs test at 160 lbs. and the Shine prototype rears are about 172, so not much of a difference there, but I've also driven about 8,000 miles on the setup since I got it. I drove from Boston to Washington DC yesterday and about 2/3 of the way through the drive I realized the ride was dramatically better at the same tire pressures and load. So maybe the shocks take more than a few miles to break in. Even driving over some of the terrible roads here in DC the ride was great. I just hope it stays like this for the next 100K!


----------



## f1forkvr6 (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (IndigoBlueWagon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *IndigoBlueWagon* »_I just hope it stays like this for the next 100K!
If you are using the HDs, it should.


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (IndigoBlueWagon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *IndigoBlueWagon* »_I've done two things: put stock rear springs back in for ride height; I was scraping my trailer hitch on speed bumps. The stock wagon rear springs test at 160 lbs. and the Shine prototype rears are about 172, so not much of a difference there

I put in a 3/4" spacer to use the Shine springs at stock ride height...
Its pretty simple with the Bilstien HDs - use 2.5" bar stock and cut/mill a center hole of the appropriate size to fit around the strut tube. Use the stock washer becuase it has a cutout to keep ya from losing the circlip (unless ya mill one into yer spacer)


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_
I put in a 3/4" spacer to use the [rear] Shine springs at stock ride height...


Hello ewong,
1) First off, a belated thank you for all the great posts you've placed on this and other threads! You've been very helpful to the newbies, and your info is always greatly appreciated by the "regulars".








2) Just a quick note about your raising the rear of a Shine setup: this Spring I was talking with Eli (over at Shine Racing), and asked him what he thought of my doing that very same thing. He cautioned me against such a move, as (if my recollection is correct) they had found the rear could get a bit unstable with a stiff spring at stock height, and it was to eliminate that instability that they had gone to the lowered rear in the first place.
Anyway, I assume your setup has been working just fine, and it's always possible I'm misquoting Eli, but people considering putting spacers under a Shine rear spring might want to give SRS a call and chat with Eli, just so they fully understand the possible implications.
Regardless, have a great weekend ewong, and looking forward to your future posts!
- Ceilidh


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (Ceilidh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Ceilidh* »_
2) Just a quick note about your raising the rear of a Shine setup: this Spring I was talking with Eli (over at Shine Racing), and asked him what he thought of my doing that very same thing. He cautioned me against such a move, as (if my recollection is correct) they had found the rear could get a bit unstable with a stiff spring at stock height, and it was to eliminate that instability that they had gone to the lowered rear in the first place.
Anyway, I assume your setup has been working just fine, and it's always possible I'm misquoting Eli, but people considering putting spacers under a Shine rear spring might want to give SRS a call and chat with Eli, just so they fully understand the possible implications.


Ceilidh:
Thanks for the warning - I should have noted that I raised BOTH the front and the rear by 3/4"!!!!
When I had the 85 chassis 
- no sway bars
- NO STOCK BAR in the rear beam!!!! (the welded in one)
- SRS springs (3/4" drop all around)
- Bilstien HDs
- "bullet" type rear prop valve (basically a restrictor)
This car WOULD get very light in the rear under heavy (aka Panic) stops. With the front SRS springs it was very controllable - just keep yer hands on the wheel - but probably un nerving to drivers behind you (end of the car kinda wagging)
The current car is a 92 which as far as I can tell is a heavier car (knee bar, sound deadening, Digifant stuff versus CIS etc) even though both are non AC non PS cars.
Also bear in mind that while the 92 has the Bilstien HDs from the 85, the springs are the "special" raised 225lb front Shine springs.
The rear was spaced up to "level" the car for looks. 
In other words - the car was raised FRONT AND REAR by 3/4" to place then entire car back at OEM height but with 225F/120R spring rates.
I would GUESS that raisng the rear of the car affects the amound of caster avaialbe (not that its adjustable as far as I can tell) - i.e. if the butt is lower than OEM and the front is at OEM ride height, the rake would "push out" the front so that one had reduced caster - making the car not track as easily?
Anyway - I have been pretty happy with this setup.
I get MOST (but not all) of the turn in that the 85 had.
I get TONS better pothole performance (no banging) as I keep off the bumpstops (and ad 3/4" of spring compression at 225lbs+ per spring etc to reach the bump stops)
I DO NOT get the same turn in / rotation performance that I used to have - my guess is that this is due to the more "roll" before I hit the stops. While it may not "feel" that it is rotationg as fast - Im not sure that it is actually slower (this is a daily driver - not a track car).
In fact at one point was was feeling like I neede more and I drove a slew of other vehicles in a short time period.. (long story as to why)
Volvo 240 wagon - Bilstien HDs
Volvo s70 - stock 
Toyota 4Runner - PreRunner suspension
Toyota 4WD Pickup - stock suspension
Acura Legend - stock 
and realied that my little golf out handles all of em (well except the 4Runner whihc is NOT exactly stock and can of couse take potholes at FULL speed but can corner for beans due to such a high (its lifted) CoG.
Anyways - strangely enough my main complaint (if one could call it that) is that I do not get ENOUGH rotation out of the rear. Im planning on a SRS rear bar to address this.
Actually Im replacing the Michelin X-Ones (they are worn over 1/2 way and get a bit squirley in heavy rain) with some BFG Traction TAs which may improve things more than a rear bar will..
I can undertsnad the "theory" dynamics that indicates that a taller rear should behave as Eli states. I havent been seeing that - but it may be that since I drive on public roads at 8/10 or far less that, I havnet seen that instability becuas Im not pushing the car that much.
Also - bear in mind (for all the rest follwoing along) that the FRONT SPRINGS are "stiffer" than stock SRS and are also TALLER than stock SRS.
What this means is that while I reaised the rear by 3/4", the FRONT was already raised by 3/4". 
This may be what Eli is referring to - if you LOWER the front by 3/4" and RAISE the rear to OEM (i.e. by 3/4" over SRS) then I could DEFINATLEY see one encountering some odd dynamics.
The nice thing is that remving the spacers is a relatively easy job (well ya have to remove the rear strut assembly but thats a bit easier than the front strut assembly)
(actually Im thinking that a Quaiffe will help more than a rear bar will - but I just blew up the R&P in my 4Runner (which also has a quaife in it) so Im not getting a qaiffe for the Golf any time soon)


----------



## Daddy'o (Oct 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (Ceilidh)*

I read the whole post and it needs to be bumped!

Big thanks to all! 
Ian, tyrol, Chris, Mr.Shine, Alex b, phatvw, wolfie, 4dbunny and all the others!
Kay-lee(Ceilidh) and pyce, when will you do a wrap up? 
If either of you come to San Antonio I'll buy you a beer.
I have a painfully stock 96 jetta vr6 and am trying to correlate all the info over to A3 specs...as I will be looking to start slowly upgrading my suspension about the first of the new year. I am approaching 80k and the original struts are getting a little soft. 
Ceilidh---your point about understeer being a good thing sometimes for inexperienced or untrained drivers is spot on! I remember when my best friend taught me how to drive in his very neutral 79' Monte Carlo. His father was a weekend racer and taught his son(my friend) to drive. He had fairly good skills and experience and I had none. I found that good driving was at first very counter intuitive and my first reaction was to lift off the throttle or brake.








The car was capable but I wasn't. I am still not a very good spirited driver







but at least I know it. 
Fantastic thread. Cogent, if not always concise







, and readable.
(There is nothing worse than trying to read someone's rambling 10,000 character run on sentence







)
I would never have had the time, money, patience to do all the testing you all have done. (at least not staying happily married!) The testimonies of different setups are invaluable to people like me.
I have learned so much that now I will be making a much more informed buying decision when the time comes; that is why I came to this forum in the first place.





















Cheers!


----------



## Ceilidh (Jan 7, 2004)

*Re: Koni Yellows in the front and Bilstein HDs in the rear????????? (Daddy'o)*

Hello Daddy'o,
Glad you found the thread helpful







(Though I'm impressed with your stamina -- the thread's so long that even I've forgotten what and where I've written things....)
We'll do a wrap-up at some point, but for now we're holding off because of some really interesting experiments Peter's been doing with shocks, dynamometers, and accelerometers. Those experiments will be discussed on a separate thread (which Peter started yesterday), and for the time being this current Shine/Koni/Bilstein thread will go dormant. After the shocks are sorted out, perhaps we'll circle back to general recommendations....
As for why we're looking at shocks: you've probably noticed that after all this experimentation, Peter and I are basically back on stock GTI/Sport suspensions and very innocuous tires (yes, the very suspension that a current Vortex thread is bemoaning as one of the most wretched pieces of garbage ever foisted on the auto-buying public







). The key difference, though, is that we've replaced the OEM shocks with stiffer aftermarket models, and our shock experiments are suggesting that somewhere out there is a shock combo that will accomplish most of what we're looking for (balanced ride and handling). We've a hunch that the magic combo is probably very close to the Koni "Red" that Koni never bothered making for the Golf/Jetta IV, but we can't be sure until some quantitative experiments are performed (and, boy, Peter is really good at these quantitative experiments!). Along the way, Peter is also hoping to get a real, impartial comparison of common shock upgrades, which will help people decide what make & model shocks will be best for their cars. And beyond that, we're learning that shock tuning is a much more involved, non-intuitive art than we ever realized, and it's kind of fun just trying to understand it better.
Anyway, this thread will come back to life someday -- thanks again for the kind words, and best wishes on your own tuning endeavors. Cheers!
- Ceilidh


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

holy ****... this thread never ends... it was way to much to reaad, but i read certain snippets pertaining to me.


----------



## briang (Mar 10, 1999)

I miss Peter Pyce.


----------



## rocco2gti (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: (briang)*

That dude knew his suspension. I feel I owe more than 1/2 of my suspension knowledge to him. Under the careful tutelage of his posts I was able to master things I had never heard of before him. 
pyce is missed


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (rocco2gti)*

Remember Pyce:
http://peterpyce.com/
http://www.rallyvw.com/team.html#peter
Don't forget Winston and Daemon!


----------



## ewongkaizen (Apr 19, 2002)

*Re: (phatvw)*

did something happen to Pyce?


----------



## phatvw (Aug 29, 2001)

*Re: (ewongkaizen)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ewongkaizen* »_did something happen to Pyce?

He just doesn't post here anymore. Last I heard it was sucking too much time away from family and projects, so he quit.


----------



## crazy88 (Jul 11, 2003)

*Re: (phatvw)*

just had to bump this thread... a very interesting read


----------



## vdubN228 (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (pyce)*

were the vehicles the same weight that you conducted your experiment on? And is the suspension tuned for the addition of the driver's weight ?


----------



## jnagar (May 9, 2009)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (vdubN228)*

wrote to Shine asking about spring rate options/recommendations, pricing, and got this in return: "Our springs should be used with Bilstein shocks." After reading this thread, though, it seems the anecdotal recommendations seem to be to go with konis (which i didn't mention in the email to them, but incidentally, will be my likely choice). any idea why they'd be so unequivocally behind Bilstein when so many out there recommend Koni w/Shine?
oh, and great thread--was very useful!


----------



## pnw_dubz (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Shine Kit with Koni vs. Shine Kit with Bilstein.... or combination of both? (jnagar)*

I recall Dick saying that from racing and customer experience, the Bilstein dampers were better quality and tended to last longer.
I've used both and like them both. But for different purposes. The Bilsteins feel a lot stiffer and sportier while Koni's have more of a luxury ride.
I've run the shine kit with both. Great performance on the track with Bilsteins, but a little bumpy on the street. The Koni's definitely smooth out the edges, but you don't have the same go-kart-like handling response that the Bilsteins provide.
Its not that one is better than the other, they are just different. Dick markets his kit as the best handling street kit. Not the most comfortable or the most aesthetically pleasing. For best handling, definitely go Bilstein.



_Modified by pnw_dubz at 2:25 PM 8-25-2009_


----------



## 20aeman (Jun 8, 2006)

koni has external bump stops (which is nice, because they can be adjusted/modded, and are plug and play with ground controls...which in my opinion, is the best setup for a spring/shock combo.


----------



## DAVEG (Aug 14, 2001)

*Re: (20aeman)*

I have used Koni and Tokico Illumina...both adjustable. This makes a stiffer spring much less rough on daily trips but does allow stiffer performance on tracks and Solo II. 
I would like to be able to use the coilover suspension to adjust spring height and shock stiffness. Bilstein makes a coilover system PSS 9/10 that allows shock adjustment and ride height adjustment but not for the MkI. Has anyone found a good coilover system that allows moderate lowering 1- 1 1/2" with adjustable shocks? Koni coilovers don't work with MkI either. FK makes several kits but they lower too low and most don't use a quality shock. Can I change the Mk1 to the MkII control arm to allow the Bilstein or Koni coilover systems?


----------

