Gauging Interest: RaceComp Street/Track Springs
Oct 6, 2007, 09:34 AM
#286
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: milpitas/ca/usa
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RaceComp springs comming off!
So..............These springs don't work as well for me as what I took off. Back to
my other springs next week. One track day on the springs, which will be available
next week cheap!
my other springs next week. One track day on the springs, which will be available
next week cheap!
Oct 8, 2007, 07:04 AM
#288
I'll bite too. If you'd rather not name names, then that's fine, but what are the differences? Spring rates? Height? What portion of the track did they perform "worse", i.e. tight turns or sweepers? What are your other suspension mods? Alignment settings? Just curious. If I don't sell my car, these springs are #1 on my list to buy.....unless I'm convinced to the contrary.
Oct 8, 2007, 12:56 PM
#291
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: milpitas/ca/usa
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slower with his springs.
1. The car now pushes, which it didn't do on the swift springs. Due to excessive
front body roll, which is caused by the new ride height. To have nil body roll
with this ride height would require about a 500# front spring(KW Varient 3
on my previous 05 MR). Also Andrew tells me there is smaller ratio of front to back
spring rates, which adds to "push"
2. I still suspect that the Bilsteins don't have enough rebound to control the
stiffer front spring, leading to "un-loading" in off camber turns.
3. While the front spring is stiffer, I don't think it is enough to overcome the
increase in ride height over the Swifts.
4. Per my post "Swifts vs. Racecomps" This setup does not inspire confidence
going into a blind off camber or hill turn. Pull up "Thunderhill Raceway in
Willows Ca. on the internet. They have a drive-around video of the track.
5. Anyway, Al Becerra "world challange driver_ gt class) drove the car also
and has the same opinions. However, he thinks it was more like 3 sec. diff.
for hiim. (I didn't time him).
Oct 9, 2007, 09:31 AM
#292
So..........I called Andrew on the phone, and explained why the car was 7 sec.
slower with his springs.
1. The car now pushes, which it didn't do on the swift springs. Due to excessive
front body roll, which is caused by the new ride height. To have nil body roll
with this ride height would require about a 500# front spring(KW Varient 3
on my previous 05 MR). Also Andrew tells me there is smaller ratio of front to back
spring rates, which adds to "push"
2. I still suspect that the Bilsteins don't have enough rebound to control the
stiffer front spring, leading to "un-loading" in off camber turns.
3. While the front spring is stiffer, I don't think it is enough to overcome the
increase in ride height over the Swifts.
4. Per my post "Swifts vs. Racecomps" This setup does not inspire confidence
going into a blind off camber or hill turn. Pull up "Thunderhill Raceway in
Willows Ca. on the internet. They have a drive-around video of the track.
5. Anyway, Al Becerra "world challange driver_ gt class) drove the car also
and has the same opinions. However, he thinks it was more like 3 sec. diff.
for hiim. (I didn't time him).
slower with his springs.
1. The car now pushes, which it didn't do on the swift springs. Due to excessive
front body roll, which is caused by the new ride height. To have nil body roll
with this ride height would require about a 500# front spring(KW Varient 3
on my previous 05 MR). Also Andrew tells me there is smaller ratio of front to back
spring rates, which adds to "push"
2. I still suspect that the Bilsteins don't have enough rebound to control the
stiffer front spring, leading to "un-loading" in off camber turns.
3. While the front spring is stiffer, I don't think it is enough to overcome the
increase in ride height over the Swifts.
4. Per my post "Swifts vs. Racecomps" This setup does not inspire confidence
going into a blind off camber or hill turn. Pull up "Thunderhill Raceway in
Willows Ca. on the internet. They have a drive-around video of the track.
5. Anyway, Al Becerra "world challange driver_ gt class) drove the car also
and has the same opinions. However, he thinks it was more like 3 sec. diff.
for hiim. (I didn't time him).
On the note of the purpose of our springs. We designed these springs FOR The Evo community. We asked what you guys wanted. Our focus was to offer a higher ride height than many of the other brands that "slam" the Evo, yet still have a competitive spring rate for track days. As anyone knows, or should know......the ulitimate track day set up would be a good set of coilovers and ALOT more negative camber and all the other toppings that we know make cars fast at the track. So after talking to many forum members and people at th track and autocross events, we have produced a product that DOES NOT lower the car too much and still can offer great performance for the enthusiast.
Myles Williams
Racecomp Engineering LLC.
Oct 9, 2007, 09:37 AM
#293
The problem I'm having is that there simply is not more front body roll with our springs. Yes our springs are a couple of mm taller but this does not mean it rolls more.
In fact, the whole idea of the Whiteline Roll Center Kit is based on the idea that, and I quote, "The EVO front roll geometry actually encourages roll the lower you go."
A little info on roll center's and how they affect your car:
So our taller ride height actually helps reduce front body roll, in comparison.
Couple this with the fact that our springs are stiffer then the Swifts, and I'm just confused how you are percieving that our springs roll more, especially as you said there is much less brake dive. Slightly taller ride height does not necessarily mean more roll, espcially with much more rate.
- Andrew
In fact, the whole idea of the Whiteline Roll Center Kit is based on the idea that, and I quote, "The EVO front roll geometry actually encourages roll the lower you go."
A little info on roll center's and how they affect your car:
Howdy all,
Zornorph, just want to clarify our comment re EVO vs WRX. The roll centre change through compression affects both cars in a similar way but the WRX has the advantage of a lower front centre of gravity thanks to the "boxer" engine configuration.
Roll centre's work in conjunction with the centre of gravity to determine the roll couple. This is the virtual distance between the 2 points and affects how the body rolls around the roll centre. To try to understand it better, think of an inverted pendulum from a clock with the pivot being the roll centre, the weight on the end being the centre of gravity and the roll couple being the length of the pendulum. The WRX has a shorter roll couple and has a lesser tendency to bury the nose under roll than the EVO.
Best regards
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
Zornorph, just want to clarify our comment re EVO vs WRX. The roll centre change through compression affects both cars in a similar way but the WRX has the advantage of a lower front centre of gravity thanks to the "boxer" engine configuration.
Roll centre's work in conjunction with the centre of gravity to determine the roll couple. This is the virtual distance between the 2 points and affects how the body rolls around the roll centre. To try to understand it better, think of an inverted pendulum from a clock with the pivot being the roll centre, the weight on the end being the centre of gravity and the roll couple being the length of the pendulum. The WRX has a shorter roll couple and has a lesser tendency to bury the nose under roll than the EVO.
Best regards
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
G'day everyone,
Looks like we have an apology to make to our WRX supporters
We targeted the EVO first because quite frankly, it has a bigger problem in this area. And by "this area", we mean front roll centre, not "ball joint extenders", "camber curve correctors" nor any other issue that may be addressed by other products currently in the market. That is, the copy of the bulletin for KCA395 at the beginning of the thread refers to a solution specific to the front roll centre problem we perceive on the EVO but we don't want to get involved in interpreting other manufacturers products and claims.
All strut based systems are prone to migrating roll centre issues due to the nature of the underlying geometry. In the EVO, front roll compounds and accentuates front roll forcing people to adopt all sorts of "band-aid" solutions to what is fundamentally a geometry problem. Our race testing on Project EVO showed the classic symptoms that was backed up by some measurements so we went to the drawing board (no experience with ball joints etc) and worked out a possible solution. Made some prototypes and everyone seemed happy (Project EVO had best times in slalom and technical sections in Dutton 2006 national tarmac rally series :banana: ). Next job was to do some durability testing before pushing the production button.
So I guess that's the good news, in our minds the WRX is not drastically affected by the roll centre problem. The other good news is that we are working on a product for the WRX but the bad news is that we're a few months away from being able to release details of the products contents and configuration.
Sorry its not more positive news but that's where we are at.
Best regards and Merry Xmas to all.
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
Looks like we have an apology to make to our WRX supporters
We targeted the EVO first because quite frankly, it has a bigger problem in this area. And by "this area", we mean front roll centre, not "ball joint extenders", "camber curve correctors" nor any other issue that may be addressed by other products currently in the market. That is, the copy of the bulletin for KCA395 at the beginning of the thread refers to a solution specific to the front roll centre problem we perceive on the EVO but we don't want to get involved in interpreting other manufacturers products and claims.
All strut based systems are prone to migrating roll centre issues due to the nature of the underlying geometry. In the EVO, front roll compounds and accentuates front roll forcing people to adopt all sorts of "band-aid" solutions to what is fundamentally a geometry problem. Our race testing on Project EVO showed the classic symptoms that was backed up by some measurements so we went to the drawing board (no experience with ball joints etc) and worked out a possible solution. Made some prototypes and everyone seemed happy (Project EVO had best times in slalom and technical sections in Dutton 2006 national tarmac rally series :banana: ). Next job was to do some durability testing before pushing the production button.
So I guess that's the good news, in our minds the WRX is not drastically affected by the roll centre problem. The other good news is that we are working on a product for the WRX but the bad news is that we're a few months away from being able to release details of the products contents and configuration.
Sorry its not more positive news but that's where we are at.
Best regards and Merry Xmas to all.
Jim
Whiteline Automotive
So our taller ride height actually helps reduce front body roll, in comparison.
Couple this with the fact that our springs are stiffer then the Swifts, and I'm just confused how you are percieving that our springs roll more, especially as you said there is much less brake dive. Slightly taller ride height does not necessarily mean more roll, espcially with much more rate.
- Andrew
Oct 9, 2007, 10:24 AM
#295
That is a great suggestion and one that I was thinking of too. However, if that was the case, wouldn't he then experience massive loss of traction because the suspension couldn't make the tires maintain contact with the track surface?
I agree that his claims seem to make no sense because of the RCE springs being less roll prone because of higher ride height and higher spring rates. I'm confused!!!!
I haven't been on a track yet, but I'm still loving my RCE springs. =)
~Steve
I agree that his claims seem to make no sense because of the RCE springs being less roll prone because of higher ride height and higher spring rates. I'm confused!!!!
I haven't been on a track yet, but I'm still loving my RCE springs. =)
~Steve
Oct 9, 2007, 12:08 PM
#296
So I'm confused as well....this is contrary to our own experiences and many others. 7 seconds, or a half second per turn, is a very long time to attribute to what essentially is a very minor change in spring rate and height.
He also installed a Whiteline bumpsteer kit at the same time, which can be installed incorrectly. This would result in some extra understeer. I'm waiting on him to get back to me on that, but no response yet.
- Andrew
Oct 9, 2007, 09:12 PM
#297
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: milpitas/ca/usa
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking the same thing....but there would be massive understeer with the spike in rate from hitting the bump stops as Steve said. We don't really see that kind of thing with either our own or Swifts to be honest.
So I'm confused as well....this is contrary to our own experiences and many others. 7 seconds, or a half second per turn, is a very long time to attribute to what essentially is a very minor change in spring rate and height.
He also installed a Whiteline bumpsteer kit at the same time, which can be installed incorrectly. This would result in some extra understeer. I'm waiting on him to get back to me on that, but no response yet.
- Andrew
So I'm confused as well....this is contrary to our own experiences and many others. 7 seconds, or a half second per turn, is a very long time to attribute to what essentially is a very minor change in spring rate and height.
He also installed a Whiteline bumpsteer kit at the same time, which can be installed incorrectly. This would result in some extra understeer. I'm waiting on him to get back to me on that, but no response yet.
- Andrew
no track info. Al Becerra (Valaya Racing-San Jose, Ca. 408-297-1990) said the
bumpsteer kit is installed correctly. Also done on his girl friends 05 MR. He will
be running his Viper #00 at Laguna Seca SCCA world Challage 10/20. The Swift
springs are back on and will be back on the track at Buttonwillow Raceway
Thanksgiving weekend with Green Flag. Hopefully, we will see you there! We
always have a relay race each year. Viper vs. Corvette Vs. Mustang Vs Imports.
Oct 9, 2007, 09:59 PM
#298
We all have varying levels of track experience, with Myles being the most experienced having raced for almost as long as I've been alive 
A lot of thought and testing went into the design of these springs, including testing different setups on track. We would not have released the springs if our testing showed that they would compromise performance, on the track or the street. But let's put that aside for a second.
7 seconds is a HUGE margin. I'd be willing to bet you could drive an Evo with some of the worst springs on the market, then switch to the best, and given the same conditions you wouldn't be 7 seconds a lap faster. There has to be something wrong there. A big variation in weather conditions, tire wear, a different track configuration, a botched alignment...something just doesn't compute. In addition, the "massive" understeer you are experiencing just isn't something we were able to create in our testing, nor have any of our many other customers who are using these springs reported a similar condition. To me it sounds like something else is up here, although without looking at or driving your car myself it's difficult to determine exactly what it may be.
-Dan
A lot of thought and testing went into the design of these springs, including testing different setups on track. We would not have released the springs if our testing showed that they would compromise performance, on the track or the street. But let's put that aside for a second. 7 seconds is a HUGE margin. I'd be willing to bet you could drive an Evo with some of the worst springs on the market, then switch to the best, and given the same conditions you wouldn't be 7 seconds a lap faster. There has to be something wrong there. A big variation in weather conditions, tire wear, a different track configuration, a botched alignment...something just doesn't compute. In addition, the "massive" understeer you are experiencing just isn't something we were able to create in our testing, nor have any of our many other customers who are using these springs reported a similar condition. To me it sounds like something else is up here, although without looking at or driving your car myself it's difficult to determine exactly what it may be.
-Dan
Last edited by GTWORX.com; Oct 9, 2007 at 10:14 PM.
Oct 9, 2007, 10:05 PM
#299
Evolved Member
Stop trippin. Whether or not the guy is right, one unfavorable review isn't going to sway anyone away from the springs. It won't sway me away, it's just that I have to save up. I'm sure I'm not the only one.