Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

Are you really suggesting that most shocks are valved symmetrically? (I can't tell, because I'm never sure what certain smilies mean.)

edit: you must mean just the slow end ... right? But, still, are you seriously suggesting equal damping for compression and rebound?

madmax199

iTrader: (20)

Yes Sir, always! As I said before, it's the operational range of chassis leaning; tires going over bigger bumps may falls out of that range but when tuning for performance that's the range you want to nail mostly (low piston velocity range(0-3 in/sec). You could do whatever you want with the mid speed and high speed shims and ramp the valving curves in any assymetrical odd way your heart desire .

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

Cool. Limit discussion to low-speed.

Why do you go against the standard suggestion of (at least with regard to single-wheel bump) multiplying the low-speed compression damping by 2/3 and the low-speed rebound by 3/2? As long as both curves are digressive, this gets the best of both worlds ... handling and ride quality.

madmax199

iTrader: (20)

Did you even read my previous posts or just acting like my niece... but why uncle Max? after every possible answer

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

See post above. It is well known that, for single-wheel bump, reducing compression to two-thirds and increasing rebound to three-halves (for any given overall damping ratio) is much better than having them equal. I should not have assumed that you agreed with this "rule." Now I'm asking why you disagree with it.

madmax199

iTrader: (20)

That's typical of a compromise setup. When you are suggesting calculating equivalent mass to find critical valving instead of the 65% suggested ball park(that works BTW) you can't possibly be saying to use ratioed valving(common on setup where the shocks are used to compensate for non-optimal spring rates).

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

I'm sorry to say that I only understand your first sentence. My response is that the 2/3 compression with 3/2 rebound is not something that I'd call a compromise in that it is closer to optimal than equal damping. During bump, energy is being stored in the spring; less needs to be removed by the shock and you definitely don't want it transmitted to the chassis. During rebound, as energy in the spring is released, you want the shock to take much more of it away. This concept applies regardless of your overall (average) damping ratio and regardless of whether you have the optimal natural frequency (i.e., optimal spring-rates).

n2oiroc

iTrader: (33)

Lots of good info here. Could you guys post what is needed on the sheet for what you recommend on revalve specs?

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

If that was partly aimed at me, then I'm not ready to make concrete suggestions. If nothing else, I'm still trying to understand why Max is suggesting not following the more-rebound-than-compression "rule" with regard to low-speed damping. And I haven't call Ramone, yet, to ask what he does when someone says "gimme 65% critical for springrates of X-front and Y-rear." (My guess as of yesterday was that Ramone would default to the 2/3 & 3/2 "rule," but I'm no longer sure.)

I'm not even sure why 65% is suggested, instead of the more-typical 70%. My guess is that this is either a compromise for street-driven cars or on purpose for tracks with more little bumps than you'd hope for. In general, 70% comes closer to minimizing the area under the transmission curve (which is a plot showing how much bumps in the road are transmitted to the chassis). But 65% transmits less high-frequency input than 70%, and it's the high-frequency stuff that makes a car uncomfortable to ride in.

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

I finally managed to parse this. No, I am not talking about running high levels of rebound to pack the suspension down. We have Evos, not ACRs.

madmax199

iTrader: (20)

We're slowly getting in the same page!
You mentioned on a previous post that you feel that having the critical damping at 70% is more ideal. I don't totally disagree for anything in 65-70% (I have seen others feel that way) but from experience, it's not what I'd recommend and I somewhat explained why(I hope). I have a feeling we're going to get into slope of the digressive curves(and how agressive you can go) soon to be able to have a clearer picture.

Iowa999

iTrader: (1)

Nope. I will keep the promise of limiting discussion to low-speed damping. And 65% vs 70% is really not that important, either. The remaining question - which has been my question since the very beginning (and is highly germane to the OP's question, too) - concerns the difference between 1:1 low-speed damping vs the often-suggested 2/3 & 3/2 damping. While I agree that if all low-speed inputs come from weight transfer, then something closer to 1:1 might be the way to go, for any realistic situation, the latter is usually preferred. Do you run on literally perfectly flat surfaces?

suby2evo

iTrader: (1)

bump can we get a summary for the noobs please?! I have a set of MR Bilsteins and I would like to get them re valved for a set of Swift Spec R's. What EXACTLY am I supposed to ask for? thanks in advance

FERNO

iTrader: (4)

Swift Spec Rs are meant to be run on factory Bilsteins as designed by Swift. I asked this question in my travels and got that response or similar. You might be able to use their rates to tweak your valving for more performance.

I asked for stock rebuild, and received the Jesus suspension. So for me, Bilsteins stock rebuild + Swift Spec R was closer to perfect than anything I've owned, and I've owned a lot. Hope that helps.