REAR SHOCKS

Message

#46 Post by **John_Heard** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:11 pm

The 230 spring will have to be compressed more to hold up the same amount of load, hence it will have more "stored energy". Say you're holding up 1000 lbs with those springs per side. The 260 lb spring will compress aprox 3.84" where the 230's will compress 4.34".

sc racing · #47 Post by **sc racing** » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:28 pm

I dont think the spring rate changes the amount of stored energy the 230# spring would be compressed more than the 260# but your ride height will be lower and that might make transfering weight to the rear worse. Try contacting Landrum Spring before you buy the Moroso springs

Mike Peters · #48 Post by **Mike Peters** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:21 am

All other factors (ride height) being equal, a lower rate spring will store more energy when compressed to the same height as a higher rate spring. In order to acheive the same ride height, the lower rate spring would be taller or spacers installed. Another note to all I didn't see mentioned elsewhere is do NOT cut new springs before installation. Allow springs to settle before cutting them to establish desired ride height.

#49 Post by **John_Heard** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:38 am

I've been trying to think of an appropriate example for this stored energy thing... Maybe if you think of a 1000 lb/in spring that is only compressed 1" as compared to a 250 lb/in spring that is compressed 4" to support the same 1000 lb load. If the free lengths of the springs are such that the car sits the same, the lighter weight spring is going to be a lot more "Active" as compared to the stiff one - trying to think of a good way to put that??

Bob West · #50 Post by **Bob West** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:17 pm

I know that I'm over 2000lbs on the front, but its never been weighed front to back. How long would a set of 1850lb Moroso springs last before they gave into the weight of my car? I keep hearing they don't last very long, is that because they were cut?. I've never used trick springs before, car hooks pretty good 1.417 best, just looking for a little more weight transfer and sneak into the 1.3x's.

sc racing · #51 Post by **sc racing** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:37 am

I dont know if this makes sense but if a spring with less spring rate has more stored energy when its compressed more than a spring of a higher rate why dont we just figure out where we want the ride height to be and get the spring with least amount of rate that will give us that ride height? I think Im confusing myself with this but I just dont think theres more stored enegry in a lower rate spring . These are constant rate springs not progressive rate so the amount of weight it takes to compress 1"always stays the same . Does that means it takes less energy for the lower rate spring to expand compared to the heigher one ? Hey Bob I ran the same set of cut springs for over 5 years and I was over there recomended weight so I wouldnt worry about it .I drove the car mostly on the street too.

Mike Peters · #52 Post by **Mike Peters** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:34 am

sc racing -I dont know if this makes sense but if a spring with less spring rate has more stored energy when its compressed more than a spring of a higher rate why dont we just figure out where we want the ride height to be and get the spring with least amount of rate that will give us that ride height?

You are correct. That is what we want--------

sc racing - I think Im confusing myself with this but I just dont think theres more stored enegry in a lower rate spring . These are constant rate springs not progressive rate so the amount of weight it takes to compress 1"always stays the same . Does that means it takes less energy for the lower rate spring to expand compared to the heigher one ?

Lower rate spring has more stored energy due to the increased compression distance responding to the equal amount of weight. A 50# weight on top of a spring with a rate of 50# will compress 1" but, a 50# weight on to of a spring with a 10# rate will compress 5". Compression of 5" has more stored energy than 1" of compression.

sc racing · #53 Post by **sc racing** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:08 pm

HeyMikeI get that but how much energy does it take the spring with less rate to expand?If you had 1000 lbs on a spring with 100 lb rate and 1000 lbs on a spring with 10 lb rate wouldnt the spring with the 100 lb rate expand 10 times faster giving you faster weight tranfer????

Mike Peters · #54 Post by **Mike Peters** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:50 pm

sc racing wrote:HeyMikeI get that but how much energy does it take the spring with less rate to expand?If you had 1000 lbs on a spring with 100 lb rate and 1000 lbs on a spring with 10 lb rate wouldnt the spring with the 100 lb rate expand 10 times faster giving you faster weight tranfer????

You could very well be correct. However, we're thinking in terms of automotive suspension where 2 springs of different rates are contained in the same space holding up the same weight at the same ride height. Which spring has been compressed more? The lighter rate spring, correct? More compression in the same space equals more stored energy. You've got to be able to compress it to be able to release it. Your example is of extreme measures and I can't dispute it but, if the spring is too stiff, it can't be compressed to store the energy.

sc racing · #55 Post by **sc racing** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:08 am

I agree totally with what your saying about a spring being too stiff but if you go by Moroso application guide you find your front end weight and get the spring that falls into that weight then cut it to get the ride height you want. So thats brings me back to the question why dont we just figure out the spring with a lower rate it will compress more and give us the ride height and have more stored enegy.Right?If that is correct why doesnt Moroso or other spring manufactures say to do that. Dont get me wrong Im not trying to say everybodys wrong and Im right I just cant figure this out

#56 Post by **John_Heard** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:46 am

Good question... I guess Moroso figures it's easier to tell you to cut the stiff spring than have to deal with returns for springs that are a little too soft??? Ideally you don't want to have to cut it.

Mike Peters · #57 Post by **Mike Peters** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:58 am

OK, I'll try this again. I typed a whole bunch of stuff this morning and the session timed out when I hit "submit" and I lost it. This response will be more brief. As far as installing the tallest lightest spring we can in the front spring pocket, it's just not possible. A taller spring has more coils. More coils have a chance for spring bind and probably lawsuit liability. So, Moroso has to offer a spring that's going to fit in the given space and suit the "averages" not the specific applications. There's more money to be made selling the mass public at a low cost than catering to the the few guys willing to spend for the best spring material to suit their exact application. Moroso is selling springs that will be better suited for your application for an affordable price. Not the best but, most racers don't want to pay for the best. Also, do not cut new springs to acheive your desired ride height. Allow the springs to settle before making this modification. Also, do not cut springs with a torch. This heats the spring and they lose their temper and sag.

sc racing · #58 Post by **sc racing** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:45 am

OK how about this....2 springs say a 250lb and a 212lb both with the same free height .You install the 250 and let in settle and its still too tall then you put in the 212 let it settle and its the ride height you want but the 250 is "correct" as per the front end weight of you car do you cut the 250 or use the 212 ? SORRY! Im having a hard time getting my question put into words the right way.

Mike Peters · #59 Post by **Mike Peters** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:06 am

sc racing wrote:OK how about this....2 springs say a 250lb and a 212lb both with the same free height .You install the 250 and let in settle and its still too tall then you put in the 212 let it settle and its the ride height you want but the 250 is "correct" as per the front end weight of you car do you cut the 250 or use the 212 ? SORRY! Im having a hard time getting my question put into words the right way.

What would make the 250 correct if it doesn't give you the ride height you want? Moroso's recommendation? The need to cut the 250# down to ride height should have answered your question. Once a spring is cut, it starts to lose energy/increase rate within a given space and that space being your front suspension. Please don't think it rude but, I think I'll bow out of this thread for now. I hope you've enjoyed it. Take care and good luck with your racing efforts.

sc racing · #60 Post by **sc racing** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:22 am

Sorry for all the dumb questions Mike .Thanks

REAR SHOCKS

Who is online