My new +5 stance
11-22-2011, 05:28 PM
#31
Nice work on the DIY.
Is that the fresh ta def trunk? How is the fitment? Gaps around the edges? Can people still buy it?
It is a fresh ta def trunk with a cf lip, The fitment isnt the best, you need to cut the factory bracket to make for room for sliding, and it is discontinued due to this reason Im pretty sure.
Is that the stillen or ait roof spoiler? How is the fitment?
Need more high res pics
Is that the fresh ta def trunk? How is the fitment? Gaps around the edges? Can people still buy it?
It is a fresh ta def trunk with a cf lip, The fitment isnt the best, you need to cut the factory bracket to make for room for sliding, and it is discontinued due to this reason Im pretty sure.
Is that the stillen or ait roof spoiler? How is the fitment?
Need more high res pics
The roof spoiler is an ebay one, and the fitment is perfect!
What coils were you on? And when you say true setup, you mean shock and springs in one? I was looking at bc. I heard stance is the same company
11-22-2011, 05:33 PM
#32
Registered User
Yea true setup is shock and springs on one. and i have bc br coilovers right now with 12k 10k spring rate. but i'm planning on getting stiffer spring rates and switching the rear to a true setup.
11-22-2011, 05:37 PM
#33
I know about stretching I've ran +5/15 before w that exact tires size and yes the ride is that bad in comparison w what I have now, after shredding my tire on the highway after a few hundred miles I just won't mess w that again! It sure looks good but for a daily driver it's just something I personally would never recomend again. He's going for looks so thats great cause it looks good just saying I know it's his DD so it's not the best option . Sacrificing tire life and riding around at risk is not my thing, GL to you brotha just my .02 !
Has absolutely nothing to do with having dampening, u only want dampening to make it stiffer Wich making it stiff with stretch tires = to a ****tier ride! My tanabe Coils ride better then stock slammed even! Call it what you want I have ran plenty of set ups to judge better from experience . I had my camber within specs as well and yes it's a **** ride regardless ! If a 245 tire on a 10.5 is not a risk then enjoy it , looks rediculous IMHO as rides horrible on top of that rides rediculous. Btw rear tire is what popped after only 500 miles camber was at -2.1 and was slammed w tanabe coils! GL guy I said all I wanted 
Only if you are talking about buying after market springs and riding on stock shocks... but of course it would ride like **** cause the stock shocks can handle so much before they blow.. 245 on a 10.5 isn't even that bad. Plenty of people do it hear and the only idiots who actually run into problems.. blow outs, side bubbles etc are the one who don't pay attention to there PSI.
11-22-2011, 05:39 PM
#34
What coils were you on? And when you say true setup, you mean shock and springs in one? I was looking at bc. I heard stance is the same company[/quote]
If you get coils and get stuck between bc and stance.. get stance I had both setup and liked stance a lot better. Yes true setup springs and shock is together.
If you get coils and get stuck between bc and stance.. get stance I had both setup and liked stance a lot better. Yes true setup springs and shock is together.
Last edited by TastefullyDoneG; 11-22-2011 at 05:46 PM.
11-22-2011, 05:43 PM
#35
Registered User
Yea i would get stance if i had to redo it again. i'm thinking about selling my bc to get some stance coilovers. they are made for what you are wanting to do Doggy. make sure you get the true setup though. definitely gonna be alot better and more comfortable.
11-23-2011, 02:02 AM
#38
Hey Doggy, you have the link to this?? My suspension mod that i will do will be true coils.... whats bad in the long run? Thanks man.
11-24-2011, 01:02 PM
#40
Here I found this
Not so much the spring rates, my concern is with the kinematics.
I thought that the spring mounted directly on the upright would cause an issue in lateral weight transfer, where the kinematics would create a higher wheel rate from reaction torque placed through the upright, whereas the moment would not exist if the load were on the lower control arm. I could not confirm this through ADAMS modeling, though I still suspect there is more occurring than ADAMS modeling can show. (ADAMS does have some flaws)
That being said, what I can confirm is this:
The spring mounted on the damper assembly WILL cause a linear spring to be progressive, since the wheel rate is a function of spring rate multiplied by the cosine of declination. Since the spring will move as an arc, the cosine function will increase through travel, affecting spring rate.
The damper's upper mount is not idealized for carrying the lateral load transfer if the spring is also utilizing this mount. The direction of the mounting bolts is perpendicular to this moment to allow flex, if the weight is transfered through this position, a wider mount would be better, such as the front upper mounts. I would not be surprised, without reinforcement, if the two upper mount bolts would break under high lateral loads.
The anti-squat on the 350Z is very high. The reaction torque in the longitudinal plane from acceleration forces is very pronounced, and acting through the top of the upright increases this affect, since there is a static moment created by the damper's mount from the upright's center. This is the primary reason spring rates on the Z must be fairly low- to accommodate the high wheel rate found under acceleration. If the traction arm could be adjusted to a new position, which I have seen done by re-welding the chassis mount, then the deficiencies of the spring rate in the damper location (in terms of wheel rate and anti-squat) could be resolved.
The JUN car you posted does not use the stock kinematics, and the traction arm is missing altogether. The Nismo race car does not appear to use the stock mount and also has adjusted the traction arm.
I would imagine that the upper mount of the Nismo car has been re-worked to survive the high lateral loading from competition.
Inverting the rear damper would be the best way for the damper to endure the lateral loading, if the spring is mounted around it. It would also better handle the friction increase in the damper's motion from lateral loading.
Mounting the spring in the OEM position, provided stock kinematics are considered, reduces this friction considerably (60% according to Nissan) and allows the spring rate to better match the wheel rate by reducing the affects of anti-squat (compared to a damper mounted spring).
I would not run the spring on the damper without the changes I mentioned, and have seen no benefit in ADAMS modeling, or using Optimum K, with using a spring mounted on the damper. If the changes I outlined were made, then mounting the spring on the damper has the benefit of reducing unsprung mass, and reducing the motion ratio, but these are only benefits if the kinematics are properly dealt with first.
That's really all I have to say about it. Do what you want, but be careful comparing photographs of cars who's suspension design you know nothing about. There is more than meets the eye to proper design. Nissan did it the way they did on purpose.
Will
*
05-02-2008, 04:37 PM * #8
Not so much the spring rates, my concern is with the kinematics.
I thought that the spring mounted directly on the upright would cause an issue in lateral weight transfer, where the kinematics would create a higher wheel rate from reaction torque placed through the upright, whereas the moment would not exist if the load were on the lower control arm. I could not confirm this through ADAMS modeling, though I still suspect there is more occurring than ADAMS modeling can show. (ADAMS does have some flaws)
That being said, what I can confirm is this:
The spring mounted on the damper assembly WILL cause a linear spring to be progressive, since the wheel rate is a function of spring rate multiplied by the cosine of declination. Since the spring will move as an arc, the cosine function will increase through travel, affecting spring rate.
The damper's upper mount is not idealized for carrying the lateral load transfer if the spring is also utilizing this mount. The direction of the mounting bolts is perpendicular to this moment to allow flex, if the weight is transfered through this position, a wider mount would be better, such as the front upper mounts. I would not be surprised, without reinforcement, if the two upper mount bolts would break under high lateral loads.
The anti-squat on the 350Z is very high. The reaction torque in the longitudinal plane from acceleration forces is very pronounced, and acting through the top of the upright increases this affect, since there is a static moment created by the damper's mount from the upright's center. This is the primary reason spring rates on the Z must be fairly low- to accommodate the high wheel rate found under acceleration. If the traction arm could be adjusted to a new position, which I have seen done by re-welding the chassis mount, then the deficiencies of the spring rate in the damper location (in terms of wheel rate and anti-squat) could be resolved.
The JUN car you posted does not use the stock kinematics, and the traction arm is missing altogether. The Nismo race car does not appear to use the stock mount and also has adjusted the traction arm.
I would imagine that the upper mount of the Nismo car has been re-worked to survive the high lateral loading from competition.
Inverting the rear damper would be the best way for the damper to endure the lateral loading, if the spring is mounted around it. It would also better handle the friction increase in the damper's motion from lateral loading.
Mounting the spring in the OEM position, provided stock kinematics are considered, reduces this friction considerably (60% according to Nissan) and allows the spring rate to better match the wheel rate by reducing the affects of anti-squat (compared to a damper mounted spring).
I would not run the spring on the damper without the changes I mentioned, and have seen no benefit in ADAMS modeling, or using Optimum K, with using a spring mounted on the damper. If the changes I outlined were made, then mounting the spring on the damper has the benefit of reducing unsprung mass, and reducing the motion ratio, but these are only benefits if the kinematics are properly dealt with first.
That's really all I have to say about it. Do what you want, but be careful comparing photographs of cars who's suspension design you know nothing about. There is more than meets the eye to proper design. Nissan did it the way they did on purpose.
Will
*
05-02-2008, 04:37 PM * #8
11-25-2011, 03:19 AM
#43
Registered Member
iTrader: (80)
Looks good Doggy, What is your center fender height from ground front and rear?
Is this the same one? Strafe Automotive 
Infiniti G37 Coupe Trunks AMS Trunk Fiberglass
Infiniti G37 Coupe Trunks AMS Trunk Fiberglass
11-30-2011, 12:12 AM
#44
I know about stretching I've ran +5/15 before w that exact tires size and yes the ride is that bad in comparison w what I have now, after shredding my tire on the highway after a few hundred miles I just won't mess w that again! It sure looks good but for a daily driver it's just something I personally would never recomend again. He's going for looks so thats great cause it looks good just saying I know it's his DD so it's not the best option . Sacrificing tire life and riding around at risk is not my thing, GL to you brotha just my .02 !
and 1 time with 245/35 on 10.5... maybe stockton, ca roads just suck i don't know lol! but again nice ride broham!
12-01-2011, 03:03 PM
#45
Looks good Doggy, What is your center fender height from ground front and rear?
Last time I measured it was about 26, but it's lower now.
Is this the same one? Strafe Automotive Infiniti G37 Coupe Trunks AMS Trunk Fiberglass
Last time I measured it was about 26, but it's lower now.
Is this the same one? Strafe Automotive
Infiniti G37 Coupe Trunks AMS Trunk Fiberglasscar looks good! very nice actually! but +1 on what vossen said, i dd my car dropped on s-techs stretched tires no camber kit. sometimes i don't even wanna drive on the freeway lol! scary sometimes, and tires popped on me 2 times 225/40 on 9.5 and 1 time with 245/35 on 10.5... maybe stockton, ca roads just suck i don't know lol! but again nice ride broham!
and 1 time with 245/35 on 10.5... maybe stockton, ca roads just suck i don't know lol! but again nice ride broham!