Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

NO. You do have have to lubricate these at all... In fact you shouldn't.

These are for the rear only and they are simply outstanding! If your anything like me... You'll luv them.

3five0_GT

Havok - how do the buddy club ride and what is your spring rates?

Trying to decide on Buddy or stance. Stance + Battle version= the price of the buddy clubs.

Gsedan35

iTrader: (10)

Well, if you follow or are the least bit interested in how a given setup may effect front/rear roll stiffness you should be advised that the coilover setups that are sprung on the rear dampners ONLY, tend to be biased towards moving that roll stiffness to the rear quite heavly. BUT, it's difficult to bring any real understanding to that unless you've taken your car to both sides of that tuning fence, one of those catch 22 things.

To answer your question, I posted on the subject before. Here's a cut and paste from the search I ran to find it.

jcpeyton

iTrader: (1)

Subscribing

3five0_GT

Thanks Gsendan35. I understand.

Buddy Club Racing spec coilovers (rear springs on dampners ONLY)
(Monotube construction, full length height adjustment separate from preload, adjustable dampners)
Spring rates in LBS Front 560 Rear 448*
Stiffer then oem by F +78% R +113%*
With 336lbs rear springs R +64%*

How did you get the r+113% stiffer than stock?
OEM springs
Front:314 Rear:342

Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

It's sounds funny but it's true. The setup is way stiffer than stock on the rear. It'ss be the first thing you feel what you do the swap but it will not be unwelcomed at all IMHO. I love this setup! Some people might disagree with me when I say this but I real believe that nissan should have designed the rear suspension like this from the start (maybe just on the track model).
I have NO squeaking noises or any other wierd noises that others have complained of after the install. In fact, with the windows up it just as quiet (or more) as stock which my wife even commented on. Whatever makes her happy. Make NO mistake though. The buddy club coilpovers and Battle version combo ain't no slouch when you wanna get on it on curvy back roads when no one is looking. I'm looking forward to some track time where I'm sure they'll prove to be a true performer.

I don't know anything about the Stance coilovers but I will admit the they "look" really nice. I kinda wish I could test them on my own to give you a better comparison. But I'm very happy with my Buddy Club. I don't think I'll be trading them anytime soon.

Hit me up on PM if you have any specific questions I can try to answer. Knowledge wise Gsedan35 is probably your best source for technical information though. If I remeber correctly. I think he has or had the same setup as well.

aleok

iTrader: (1)

sorry if this was answered before:
can the Battle Version Camber and Toe links be used with tokico d-specs and aftermarket springs??

Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

Sorry but they cannot be used with the Tokico D-Specs. This setup requires a true coilover suspension setup in the rears as you will lose the spring bucket on the rear lower suspension arms.

Gsedan35

iTrader: (10)

Notice the last paragraph,......

So, it's a stiffer spring that leverages more of it's power to the wheel because of it's new location. Move that same spring back to the oem rear spring location and that percentage would go down.

3five0_GT

Yeah, I kind of figured that is where you got the number from.

Gsedan - I'm not good with numbers, can you calculate the stiffness on the Stance Coilovers.

Front:11k (615) Rear: 5k (279) Progressive

Gsedan35

iTrader: (10)

I don't believe the setup is progressive rear. If not it's a very simple thing to swap on a pair of Eibach ERS linear springs of the same rate and length (sold in 25lbs rate increments).

Front: 616lbs Rear: 280lbs on the dampners ONLY (peak rate "if" were are talking about a progressive spring).
Stiffer then oem by: F+96% R+35%

Just to say it, running a 280lbs spring on the rear dampner only, is the same thing as running a 460lbs spring in the normal rear location. Both leverage about 160lbs to the wheel.

**Important note, all "stiffer then oem" figures are vs 03-04 Z setups that have the softer rear spring rate setup vs 04.5+ setups that have stiffer oem rear springs.

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

There is no motion ratio for rear springs mounted on the damper body, as the damper is mounted directly to the hub. OK.. there will be a minimum of travel disparity due to the angle, but for the most part, it will be 1:1. When the hub goes up one inch, so does the damper compress one inch (minus the small fraction taken up due to the angle of the damper) The springs mounted on the damper will have almost 100% of their rate applied to the wheel. It is just like a strut, only a strut has it's body fixed rigidly to the hub to prevent deflection of the damper body, and damper sprung systems for the Z obviously are not. Which also means under compression the spring rate applied to the wheel will change as deflection occurs, and of course will have a similiar effect when the rate is transferred to the opposite end. I would HATE to have this system with progressive springs. Anyone wonder why Nissan, BMW, etc.. have never run this design on their cars unless utilizing Chapman Struts instead of regular dampers, or why NO race teams have done this on there cars, and do these systems like the Buddy Club at least invert the dampers for the rear? I'm sure they're great for driving around town, but I would never run them for serious track duty.
Will

Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

I have nothing to say. I mean I think half of what you said is wrong but I'm not going to say that.

Gsedan35

iTrader: (10)

Well, I climbed under the car, wrote down the measurements and pluged them in here http://www.proshocks.com/calcs/imotion.htm

Net reslut was 59% If the software is wrong, oh "wow" comes to mind on the Buddy club setup.(no offence to you guys running the setup I think you know the score).

Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

No.. Please share. You can't just leave us in that dark like that... It ain't nice.

OH... I need this answer in english.

Gsedan35

iTrader: (10)

Well theirs nothing hidden other then conveying a point to him and not wanting to burn the owner's with the setup in the process and yet I don't want to come off as so high and mighty that their just no way I could be wrong. But I did take actual measurements and plug them in. I just don't have happy thoughts if your setup does indeed transfer close to 100% of the rear springs power to the wheel. I've said in the past that I thought a 2Kg rate step down in the rear would pay dividends for you, things that would closely match Unitech/Truechoices reasoning for the rate scheme they R&D to (would be easier to point you to the first thread on their product then to try and explain here). https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....ech+truechoice

Havok_RLS2

iTrader: (9)

How about you just e-mail me with your thoughts on the matter. I personally thought you liked this suspension setup. If you have any thoughts as to how to improve it. I'd really love to know all your thoughts on the matter.

3five0_GT

Wow! 96% in the front! That seems like alot , but is it ok to have the front that much stiffer? Or like you said, maybe I can swap out the springs of a lower rate in the front and get a liner spring for the rear.

I understand a lot of elements come into play and sometimes the damper is valved for that specific spring rate.

I don't want to install springs and have my alignment out of spec and suffer tire wear. I also do not want to cut (spc) into my suspension to get it back into spec.

The only reason I want this true damper setup is so I can fix my camber and toe with the battle version links. At the same time I do not want to suffer a harsh ride for the street(daily driver). Please help me determine what springs rate would be ideal for a true damper setup.

Gsedan35 you have been a real big help to me and other reading this thread. I dont have the same knowledge as you, but if I did I would be helping others as well. Hopefully the information I read here will allow me help others. Thanks

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

I'm not trying to come off as high and mighty, but let's look at this again. In that link, that's a very basic way to determine motion ratio, as it doesn't take into account the angle of the spring. Of course, it isn't a huge issue so let's leave it out. Next, that formula will net you a correct motion ratio if it is used correctly, such as on the front suspension. The distance from the lower ball joint to the pivot on the lower control arm would be measured, and the distance between the ball joint and the damper mount would inflect leverage on the spring and alter the motion ratio. This is obvious. Now let's look at the rear, where the damper is on hub, and not on the lower control arm. The hub does not flex, so whenever the wheel moves one inch up, everything attached to the hub moves one inch up. There is no leverage. Now on the stock location, there is leverage and that formula works, because the spring is on the lower control arm.
What were you putting in for the dimensions anyway? Were you just guessing where the spring centerline would intersect on the lower control arm in the damper location and using that for the "b" measurement. That equation requires an actual mounting point to be valid, and there is none with these cheap spring-on-damper coilovers. It would be like trying to use that equation for struts.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, mounting the spring on the damper is like using struts, since the damper is attchached to the hub and not the lower control arm as in the front. This does several things, but the most important of these is the increase in roll stiffness due to a 1:1 wheel ratio. I will not put these on my car, but I'm not trying to knock those who do. It's a personal preference, and I as I said before, they should work well for most circumstances. As I also said before, no one will ever see this design on a racing car without other modifications due to the inherent mounting issues and wheel rate.
This is basic racing suspension 101, that the damper should be mounted as close as possible to, or on, the hub because that is were it is most effective. This is why it is on the hub in our cars, porches, BMW's, etc... if the spring were also mounted to the hub, then the damper mounting would need to be designed to support the weight of the vehicle in that spot. It is not on our cars. If it were, it would be a rigid connection to accomodate such. The damper mounting is designed to move in an arc to accomodate the natural motion of a design using unequal length upper and lower arms. this means the spring will also travel in an arc as the hub gains negative camber in compression and positive camber in droop. This will inherently alter the spring rate as well, hence why the use of a progressive rate spring in this application on the track gives me the willey's. The stock location allows a vertical gain in compression and droop, as does the front design by mounting it on the lower arm, because the arm is fixed in it's motion and will not change in camber as the hub does with it's upper and lower ball joints.
I hope this makes some sense. I'm not trying to dog this product or come off as high and mighty, and I apologize if my tone is such. I am only learning myself, but thought this information should be shared. Just think about it, that the hub will move the same rate as the wheel and the damper does too since it is attached to the hub. Searching the net for wheel rate info on strut designs might give some helpful info.
Will
edit: spelling and such

Resolute

iTrader: (2)

That's cool, I'm not pooping in your cherrios here. I do think that people should have an idea of what they're getting with this suspension, and people will naturally ask what's the deal with these spring on damper deals and how are they different. This thread, thanks to guys like you and Gsedan35 , will help them answer that question. I'm just throwing in my two cents as well, Will