accordionfolder said:
I personally believe 9/10 of people would extract the same 'performance' if they had top shelf single adjustable components or reasonable bottom shelf components (I'm not talking maxpeeding kinda stuff, that's like .... basement stuff). Alignment and rake are more important for the most part.
I used to believe this, then I went to a car with some high end shocks on it. On a bumpy track it just translates to more grip.
Friend of mine: You know that part at the exit of turn 1 where it's really bumpy?
Me: Uh... no? What bumps?
This is all assuming that the suspension has been set up by someone who knows what he's doing with it. I totally agree that 90% of people (including me!) have no idea how to properly set it up.
Keith Tanner said:
OldGray320i said:
I'm a slave to fashion, but I don't want to totally give up performance, either. It's a challenge, but with enough thought, patience, and research you can get there.
Meister R seems to have the right combination of price performance, they really hit the fat part of the bell curve for their target market. Disagree with Keith that they don't understand preload, they do, and they know what their product is and who it serves.
We obviously disagree strongly on the "preload" thing - Meister R has yet to actually explain how they think it affects driving dynamics. My belief is that anyone who adjusts preload and notices a difference is actually reacting to the change in bump travel - the preload number is a side effect, the travel is the primary thing being adjusted. And if you talk to other top suspension guys like Emilio, they'll back me up.
I agree that Meister R has marketed their products extremely well and taken aim at a big juicy chunk of the market.
I think what they argued is that you can get acceptable performance and travel out of a 2 piece. A lot of back and forth about the engineering minutiae, but at the end of the day that seemed the crux of the argument. The basic engineering is what it is, but everything in engineering is a trade off, and it doesn't exist for its own sake. Business also involves cost, marketing, and service. If the product didn't work (the engineering), the other three won't save it for long.
accordionfolder said:
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I personally believe 9/10 of people would extract the same 'performance' if they had top shelf single adjustable components or reasonable bottom shelf components (I'm not talking maxpeeding kinda stuff, that's like .... basement stuff). Alignment and rake are more important for the most part.
I have plenty real-world experience with that - now in the double adjustable world I don't have experience. My next set on my road-race car will be double adjustable.
I picked up nearly 3 seconds per lap on 1-year older tires when I went from VMaxx classics (which are great, they just don't have the spring rate for RComps) to 800/500 XIDAs.
Didn't care for the 650/400 Fat Cat's I drove on a friends car.
In reply to z31maniac :
I wasn't talking about switching spring rates. Switching from a 391/258 to 800/500 ... it should go faster on r-comps. 800/500 on R's is probably too soft still depending on bar assuming you mean slicks or <200tw tires on a road course. My friend has vmaxxxxxxxxxx on his Miata and they're soft even for street tires on a road course.
I was saying apples to apples, similar spring rate and target audience coilovers. Feal to fox to xida or the like. I've run all of those.
My issue with coil overs has always been quality / price point. If I'm not buying Ohlins or Bilstein PSS9s or 10s, I'd rather have Konis and quality springs.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Ohlins are overpriced for what you get, unless you go up to their super high-end stuff. It's quality, but it doesn't have the knowledge that someone like Keith or Emilio put in to developing it for a particular platform.
In reply to accordionfoler: that's on me, I misunderstood.
In reply to z31maniac :
Yeah, I wasn't too clear - I think on the single adjustable with similar spring rates most people aren't going to be able to extract a meaningfully different amount of performance on the same car on a road course/autoX. I've not done enough rally, rough road, or rough track to speak definitely about any of that though. Maybe it makes a difference there.
I think the differences in shock valving do get exaggerated as the surface gets rougher - and that includes nailing berms. You can see some significant differences in how the car behaves. There's a chicane in our local test track that shows marked differences in different high-end suspensions when you nail the curb.
