The ability to post messages is restricted to LCGB members. Any questions contact us at lcgbadmin@googlemail.com
bsso78 wrote:Personally I think they are as much use as tits on a bull. Standard springs every time for me.
Andyf wrote:Would a racer prefer the predicability of a linear spring over a progressive?
Also, if the effect only manifests itself at 'racing' activities, wouldn't it be preferable to have the least mobile end (tight) at the end where you prefer least movement (wheel)?
SmudgeDog wrote:I see this differently. The spring never contributes to "sprung" or "unsprung" weight. It is the link between the two...ish. It does not even matter if you have them different, you still get the same amount of spring resistance. Physics. I think the only common sense advice in real world conditions is to put the tighter coils downwards as it may help keeping shit out. Weight down for a lower centre of gravity...well you or I will never be able to sense that miniscule difference.
dickie wrote:@wt1. There isn't really a hard and soft part of the spring. The tight coils just get coil-bound first, so that the spring in effect becomes shorter and consequently harder. Like you say, the whole spring is working and at the same N/mm rate, UNTIL, the tighter coils are fully closed. It's at this point that there is a transition into a firmer rate.
I don't know how to say the next bit without being total nob, so forgive me, it's wholly unintentional. The suspension will perform better with the tighter coils at the top as they are denser and therefore would increase unsprung mass (inertia), consequently reducing the ability of the suspension to react as quickly to undulating in road surface. This really isn't opinion, just physics (that was the nob bit). However, note that this effect is tiny so you'll never know the difference; it's just an interesting bit of physics if you like that sort of thing.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests