Should SpecE30 go to coilovers?


#1

At the bottom of this discussion, find a SurveyMonkey link.

Background.
Our front springs are 315lbs/in and rear 575lbs/in. Eibach, Ground Control, Bimmerworld, and Pro3 all like ~400 front and 600-700 rear.

There is some consensus that one can detect a change in spring rate when one makes a change of ~50lbs/in. Change of less than that can’t be detected.

Our springs are a wear item. BW says that once we note that other cars seem to be riding higher, we should change our springs. Therefore a lot of us are due for a spring replacement.

All spring rates discussed here are compatible with our Bilstien Sports per BW, GC, and Bilstien. No change in struts/shocks is contemplated in the hypothetical scenarios that I dreamed up.

SpecE30 bleeds racers to SpecE46. A common thread is that the stiffer SpecE46 suspension “feels like a race car.”

This is not an attempt to shove an unwanted change down the throats of the community. This is an attempt to better understand what the community wants. Don’t get over-excited by a simple attempt to get your opinion.

Front springs can be removed by dropping the strut down out of the camber plate. The rear spring can be removed by simply unweighting the suspension and prying out the spring. Both tasks are easier tho with the $15 Harbor Freight spring compressor.

  1. Front spring scenario. We have a number of approved kits and 2 approved venders. Cost is ~$300. Spring rate 375lbs so it would be a perceivable change. There’s a number of variations of the kits to accommodate those that want to cut and/or weld the adjuster to the strut, and those who don’t. The former solution is a bit more robust. There’s a kit for conventional coilover camber plates, and a kit for those of us that have “Spec” camber plates. The difference here is that Spec camber plates were made for the OEM tophat and therefore shove the spring top hat down an inch or so. Ride height would have a minimum spec. This would be an “allowed” not a “required” suspension change to accomodate those whom, for whatever reason, didn’t want the hassle.

The easy route for current builds would be the no weld/cut kit designed for the Spec camber plate. The logical route for new builds would be the weld/cut kit designed for conventional, also cheaper, coilover camber plates.

Installation cost. If you got the non cut/weld kit when installing the coilovers would be like swapping springs. It would easily do-able in an evening. It would be unreasonable for a shop to charge >2hrs labor.

Advantages:
Camber and caster would become far more adjustable because the OEM tophat would go away. You could get more camber then you’d need. This would level the playing field between cars that could get lots of camber/caster and those that can’t.

No more encouragement to bend struts. Some race classes allow bending and welding struts. This works, but since it’s not allowed in our class, if your strut “gets bent” there’s no welding allowed to reinforce your weakened strut. It’s a problem when the rules encourage folks to weaken suspension members.

Some drivers complain that their car rides higher then others for no obvious reason. Adjustable ride height fixes that.

Reduced roll creates more even tire wear which lengthens the life of our tires.

There is some consensus that this change would bring us in the ballpark of the optimum E30 spring rates.

Reduced bleeding drivers to SpecE46 because our stiffened suspension reinforces our big smiles.

Drivers that have big corner weight problems can mitigate problem.

Disadvantages.
Most drivers will feel that they “have to” open up their wallets. Even tho the change from 315lbs to 375lbs/in is little over the detectability threshold, there is sure to be a perception that in order to be competitive, you have to do it. This is somewhat mitigated by the need for many of us to swap out our springs anyhow. Also, drivers that did not want to go to the stiffer front spring certainly wouldn’t be forced to.

Change is bad. No sarcasm intended, I entirely agree that one should be wary of changing something that is reasonably successful. Perfection is often the enemy of good enough.

  1. Rear spring scenario. A single kit. Adjustable height. Spring rate would go up slightly to 600lbs/in. The higher spring rate won’t be detectable. Cost ~$250. This would require a rear height spec. This would also be an “allowed” not a “required” change.

Installation. Easy. If a shop charged you >90min labor, they charged too much.

Advantages.
Our rear springs only have about 1.5" of travel because most of the coils are bound up when the car is at rest. H&R says that the reason for this is to ensure the spring doesn’t escape when the trailing arm is unweighted. With so little travel, our rear suspension binds up whenever the car loads up significantly. Obviously infinite spring rate is bad. This is common when bounding over a gator, or when the combo of lat g and vertical g force it. For example, if I have a passenger at Road Atlanta, my outboard rear spring binds up in turn 1. A side affect is that the bound up spring acts as a fulcrum and puts huge forces on the trailing arm pivot points. This is cited as a cause of our problems keeping rear alignment settings. Coilovers would not be mostly bound up at rest, would therefore allow more travel, and these problems would go away.

Since the change in spring rate is below the level of detectability, there should be no perception of “I need to do this in order to be competitive.”

Fixes complaints re. cars riding higher than others.

If we’re going to do a rule change on something as significant as suspension, better to do it all at once.

Same mitigation of corner weight problem above.

We avoid having to negotiate with H&R to make available a “rear springs only” kit.

Fill out the survey pls. By all means add your thoughts to this thread.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6JTK2QQ


#2

Scott’s editorial commentary.
I like the front coilovers idea.

I think the advantages of replacing the rear springs is less compelling tho. What’s best about the rear spring idea is that the change in rear spring rate would be undetectable and therefore there should be no rush to do it. The best kind of rule change is one that helps people w/ a problem, but doesn’t make folks feel that the need to do it to be competitive.

I have strong feelings re. our “playing field” being as even as possible. I hate the fact that some cars can get better suspension settings then others, simply because their car is conveniently “bent” just right. If I could only get -2.5deg in front, I wouldn’t be able to make my car turn for money or love. In my case tho, my car’s pretty banged up so I can get -3.5, so I’m ok. It’s not about me, it’s about the guy that can’t even get -3deg. Those that don’t like the coilover idea, you just gonna tell that guy to suck it up?

On the other hand, I will never forget watching some guys race PTD at Rd Atl last year. I was watching turn 5. One guy was able to take the turn faster then I possibly dared, yet his car wasn’t drifting out and then up on the turn 5 exit gators. His car turned like it was on rails. I was seeing what I would have thought impossible.

It made a big impression upon me that someone could find a way to make his car do something that mine couldn’t.

Our cars roll like pigs. I did a lot of talking to folks familiar with racing E30s and there is a clear consensus that the cause of us rolling like pigs is that we don’t have enough front spring. I am envious that the SpecE46 guys report that their cars, unlike ours, handle like a race car. I’d like to have a SpecE30 that would see a SpecE46 guy get in my car and exclaim “now that’s more like it.”

James Clay made it pretty clear to me that I should have replaced my 9yr old springs many years ago. I think he almost burst out laughing. So that pretty much makes this cost neutral for me.


#3

The reason I wrote this up is that I was poking around the idea of front coilovers, but with the same spring rate in order to level the playing field for camber/caster. The reasoning was that the coilovers would lose the OEM spring hat which is the limiting factor. After doing a bit of research and talking to folks tho, I decided that the idea was a fail. The various workable solutions had different front spring rates and were therefore not just about leveling the playing field…I was now into a subject far more significant… a real change to SpecE30 suspension, and that’s serious emotional shit. Therefore, fail.

So then I thought “ok, the level the playing field idea was a nogo. But I wonder what folks are thinking these days about going to coilovers? We used to talk about it every once and now because we were always bitching about our soft suspension, but the idea was a nogo because of the cost and hassle. But it’s become pretty clear that we could do it w/o a lot of cost and hassle. So what I’d really like to know is, if I presented a pretty specific proposal, how would the community react? If they liked the idea we could at least test it.”

So hear I am. Pun intended, of course.


#4

I like the idea. I would like more camber. I am advised by some shops that the only way to get it is to bend the tubes. So someone out there is doing it. I don’t want to cheat.

I also like the idea because a minimum ride height can be set and all cars would have to comply.

the adjustability looks to be relatively inexpensive. I ran coil overs on “other” German cars with success.


#5

I’m not certain that I understand what rear coilovers would look like on an E30. On an E36, it couldn’t be done without substantial reenforcement of the rear shock towers, as they weren’t designed to bear that weight in that location. Would the same be true on the E30? Also, effective spring rates would be different as it would be applied in a different location, yeah?

I like the front coilovers idea.


#6

[quote=“juliancates” post=81756]I’m not certain that I understand what rear coilovers would look like on an E30. On an E36, it couldn’t be done without substantial reenforcement of the rear shock towers, as they weren’t designed to bear that weight in that location. Would the same be true on the E30? Also, effective spring rates would be different as it would be applied in a different location, yeah?

I like the front coilovers idea.[/quote]
That’s a good point. E30 rear coilovers aren’t “real” coilovers. They’re marketed as coilovers, but it’s just a spring with an adjuster barrel. It goes in the OEM location, not over the shock. The adjuster barrel lets you change ride-height, and also retains the spring. That means it’s not necessary to design the spring with most of it’s coils already bound.


#7

for every 1 people that want coilovers, 10 don’t but don’t say anything. it’s true, go snopes it. :thumbsup:

if it aint broke, don’t fix it. “spec” isn’t spec when you add more adjustment to it. The cars drive fine.

bleeding to SpecE46? if people want to spend $40-50K for those builds that fine (unless you want a junk build). if people are in SpecE30, they aren’t looking to spend that much unless they want to out spend the competition, and it’s proven that isn’t an easy path to success within this class.

You know why a lot of people left SE30 last year? the dyno rule. Why do I want to leave? the dyno rule. Why did i leave my old class and get into SE30? the dyno rules. i thought it was good at first, but now it’s such a low number and the dyno is so bogus it’s a worthless rule. i’ve dynoed anywhere from 153-163hp on the same dyno with the same exact everything at the track. THAT makes me want to leave the class. Coilovers will contribute to that cause.

my .02


#8

[quote=“lightningd” post=81758]for every 1 people that want coilovers, 10 don’t but don’t say anything. it’s true, go snopes it. :thumbsup:

if it aint broke, don’t fix it. “spec” isn’t spec when you add more adjustment to it. The cars drive fine.

bleeding to SpecE46? if people want to spend $40-50K for those builds that fine (unless you want a junk build). if people are in SpecE30, they aren’t looking to spend that much unless they want to out spend the competition, and it’s proven that isn’t an easy path to success within this class.

You know why a lot of people left SE30 last year? the dyno rule. Why do I want to leave? the dyno rule. Why did i leave my old class and get into SE30? the dyno rules. i thought it was good at first, but now it’s such a low number and the dyno is so bogus it’s a worthless rule. i’ve dynoed anywhere from 153-163hp on the same dyno with the same exact everything at the track. THAT makes me want to leave the class. Coilovers will contribute to that cause.

my .02[/quote]
Reasonable points. It’s important that shortcomings get discussed. Nothing gets fixed unless one bitches about it.


#9

I’ll remain open minded to this change, but my initial response is that this is a solution to an imaginary problem.

Responding to the advantages. I’ve tinkered around with several cars and most can get plenty of camber without much problems. On those that couldn’t, you could massage shock towers to get what was needed. If folks are tweaking the strut housings, why is this a bad thing? Is the tweaking causing mechanical failure? It seems that just changing the rule to allow tweaking the strut housing would be easier than requiring (giving folks the option) to run different springs. By giving folks the option to run different springs does not mean the cost is limited to parts and labor for installation. What about testing the different combinations? You essentially will have a soft and stiff setup for the front and rear; heck, it might even make sense to run soft springs on the passenger side at places like Road Atlanta. The front runner runners will of course need to test all of the different combinations.

On ride height, the perception that a lower car is an advantage is just that, a perception. Extreme lowering of the car has a negative impact on the roll center and this is not good for the suspension geometry in the front. We already have a method to adjust ride height with OEM spring rubbers that are available in different thicknesses from your local BMW dealer anyway.

On tire wear, I’m skeptical that this small change in spring rate will have a measurable change on tire wear. I’m also skeptical that this spring combination is near ideal. Also, stiffening the front more than the rear will likely cause our cars to understeer more with all other factors remaining constant.

If we are going to make a spring change, we should go much stiffer and much racier if the idea is to make our cars more comparable to platforms like Spec E46 race cars.

Reference adjusting corner weights, we don’t need coilovers to make these adjustments. As pointed out above, we have OEM spring rubbers available and we always have the option of moving mass around inside the car.

Responding to the disadvantages. The idea that a suspension change will be competitive advantage is not a perception. Someone will certainly find a way to optimize this setup even more than what you pointed out seeing in Turn 5 at Road Atlanta. There will be huge setup learning curve that will take most racers years to figure out.

I’m all about change, but after writing this, think I would just prefer to replace my old, saggy and weak H&R springs.

However, I think there are some engine mods that I mentioned at EC champs that are worth pursuing that could help to add parity between most of pro built and shade tree built engines.


#10

Interesting points.

No one is suggesting tho that one could mix and match springs left and right. Also, since the consensus I found was around 400lbs/in in front, it’s hard to imagine someone deciding that the fast solution is not 375lbs/in in front, but 315. I don’t understand suspension well enough to have my own educated opinion on it, but I did talk to lots of smart folks re. the issue. They all got mentioned in the first post.

Tweaking the strut housing is bad because it’s weakened. It can’t possible be as strong when the the base of the tube is pulled a couple mm out of the friction fit socket it goes into.

I’ve seen numerous cars that wouldn’t get 3.5deg, and not just my 2 cars. I had to bang the shit out of them to get roughly -3.5L and -3.4R. And with them set like that, I’ll never get a whisker of caster. But it I bent my strut tube I could get a bunch of caster.

For adjusting corner weights, there’s no need to buy scales. Just measure the height of each corner and set it to the same after the install. Heck, since there’s only a couple kits in the hypothetical scenario, just set them to what everyone else is setting them to. Then when you go to the track next do real cornerweights. In my case tho I bought 8x 400lb bathroom scales at Target. Cost $160. I used them to check cornerweights a couple weeks ago.

Best of all, almost cost neutral. Apparently I should have replaced my springs years ago.


#11

[quote=“Ranger” post=81761]Interesting points.

No one is suggesting tho that one could mix and match springs left and right. Also, since the consensus I found was around 400lbs/in in front, it’s hard to imagine someone deciding that the fast solution is not 375lbs/in in front, but 315. I don’t understand suspension well enough to have my own educated opinion on it, but I did talk to lots of smart folks re. the issue. They all got mentioned in the first post.

Tweaking the strut housing is bad because it’s weakened. It can’t possible be as strong when the the base of the tube is pulled a couple mm out of the friction fit socket it goes into.

I’ve seen numerous cars that wouldn’t get 3.5deg, and not just my 2 cars. I had to bang the shit out of them to get roughly -3.5L and -3.4R. And with them set like that, I’ll never get a whisker of caster. But it I bent my strut tube I could get a bunch of caster.

For adjusting corner weights, there’s no need to buy scales. Just measure the height of each corner and set it to the same after the install. Heck, since there’s only a couple kits in the hypothetical scenario, just set them to what everyone else is setting them to. Then when you go to the track next do real corner weights. In my case tho I bought 8x 400lb bathroom scales at Target. Cost $160. I used them to check cornerweights a couple weeks ago.

Best of all, almost cost neutral. Apparently I should have replaced my springs years ago.[/quote]

Okay, so mismatching of springs will need to be written into the rule and enforced. Generally speaking though, a softer spring up front combined with stiffer spring in the rear will increase the ability for a car to turn at corner entry and mid corner. A car will tend to push if you reverse the spring bias at mid and corner entry, but drive out through corner exit nicely.

How do you draw the conclusion that tweaking the strut housing is causing problems? Has there been failures? I haven’t heard of or seen any…

Banging the shit of the shock tower is more desirable to me than installing and relearning setup for an entirely new suspension setup. Bending the strut housing for more caster is also a good idea which I did by hitting a Thunder Roadster on my driver side.

I don’t think your measuring technique will work for corner weighting with different spring rates and lengths. It’s irrelevant though because we can corner weight with the current setup and coil over setup alike. I do concede that coilovers are easier to adjust though…

Cost neutral? Kind of, but there will be a learning curve…


#12

Why? Why why why
I agree with everything martin said
I
Besides the fact that scott finds this project interesting, who else even asked for this?

I vote no a thousand times no

How about a new rule proposal by me, the new rule is no rule changes in spec e30 for the next five years, I bet that gets more votes than this idea

My ideal class is fun…check, competitive… Check, good groups of people to race and hang with…check, cheap as we can make it…check until you make us spend money for no reason, rules stability…not sure if we have that or not


#13

I think there needs to be a 3rd option on the survey monkey – “Neither for or against.”

As someone who just put their car together with new parts, I’m a few years out from being able to realize the financial aspect of replacing old springs.

I think the main thing I read that makes coil overs appeal to me is the front camber adjustment aspect of it, though it’s a part I’m probably the least clear on. I have the GC plates that are “specific for Spec E30”, I have them adjusted to the innermost position, and yet I can only get to -3.0/-3.1 degrees of camber. Yet, most people I’ve talked to say they’re up to “-4 degrees” in the front. When I ask how, I always get the same answer – something about how “the towers must have sagged over the years” or “the previous owner had an accident”. I think I’m 3 for 3 (or more) on those answers.

So, now, I’m fairly sure everyone’s tweaked their strut towers and/or strut tubes to get to that level of camber. I don’t really mind it since it seems like the “right” level of camber for these cars to maximize performance and tire longevity. My first set of tires seem to be wearing more on the outside than the inside, too, which contribute to my being cool with people running -4.

But… I’m reluctant to make those kinds of changes to get to -4 since it’s not allowed in the rules. Also, despite being “3 for 3”, hell, maybe there’s something legal I’m not doing to get the camber down that low – to be honest I’m not sure I’ve fully investigated it, but it sure seems to be “unnatural”. One of the rules allows for slotted strut mount holes, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do this. I’m also not even sure it would work as I think my camber problem is because the hat starts hitting the tower walls – so slotting the mount holes wouldn’t really help, and would contribute to weakening the strut tower a tiny bit, too.

If allowing for a different kind of front suspension gets me to the point where I can get to those numbers without some black magic, that’s a big plus for me. Then again, a rules change that lets people bend their strut tubes to get to that level camber would also accomplish the same thing (in terms of my perceived benefits). Edit: Note that I wrote this before reading Rich’s exact same comment – “It seems that just changing the rule to allow tweaking the strut housing would be easier than requiring (giving folks the option) to run different springs”. :slight_smile:

I’m neither here nor there on the rest of the benefits. Would be nice, but also wouldn’t make or break my participation. Of course, I haven’t gotten around to corner balancing my car or adjusting my ride height, so I could see myself leaning in a different direction once I’ve been doing this for a few years. :slight_smile:

Som


#14

[quote=“FishMan” post=81762]

…but there will be a learning curve…[/quote]
I agree. The idea has downsides. I’m not pushing the idea hard, I’m mostly just gathering opinions. In all the previous times we’ve discussed it, we’ve never had a realistic proposal. Now we do, so it makes sense to find out what people think.


#15

To Som’s point, we should address the purple elephant in the room… Before I say this, I am not endorsing any methods that are not in compliance with our rules. Instead of changing our entire suspension setup, a more logical approach would be to adjust the rule to something that is enforceable. You see, our strut struts are kind of like trees; if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, did it actually fall? If a strut tube somehow gets mysteriously bent and nobody saw someone physically bend it, is it actually bent? The idea that folks are not bending strut tubes is both naive and completely unenforceable as a rule. My recommendation would be to allow folks to bend strut tubes if they feel so inclined and just forget worrying about springs and suspension changes. As Som pointed out, this mod appears to be common place and I’m not aware if it causing any negative impacts to the performance or reliability of our race cars.

The whole “I hit a pot hole argument” doesn’t really hold water, but that’s what folks have been saying for years. This argument however does not seem to work for headlights…


#16

And, for the record, I have zero problem discussing these kinds of changes. :slight_smile:

While I get why some may get frustrated with rules changes, we’re talking about a series that’s spread across a dozen(?) regions across the US. It’s not always easy to get a sense of the issues people are collectively facing. I think the ability to have these kinds of discussions about rules is critical to the longevity of the series. What would be worse, to me, is to have some kind of long standing issue that never goes addressed because people were too worried about bothering everyone with a rules discussion.

Som


#17

I like the idea of higher spring rates, it would be closer, safer racing. The car would be more controlled in the turns. Most of us SE30 racers haven’t driven other race cars, therefore we think our cars are perfect, but they aren’t, Street suspension is not meant to be for the race track. We have the best group of guys in the paddock at any weekend, why not make the race cars a little better. I agree with Carter when he says “It’s never been about the car, it’s about the racing”, but it doesn’t hurt to make the car a little better, if it does, why not go backwards and race on street tires, they are also part of the suspension and way cheaper.


#18

I’m voting no for no other reason than coilovers are an option for me in other classes should I choose to race in them. I have wished a thousand times to be able to adjust the suspension to fix whatever was ailing me but I kept remembering that lack of adjustability let me focus on learning and not adjusting. It was one of the reasons I left GTS1 for SE30. Coilovers are a good idea. Spec non-adjustable suspension is a better idea. I would definitely be in favor of evaluation other suspension options that would improve the handling, racing and safety but only non-adjustable options.


#19

I am going to chime in on this one, since I’ll be joining the group soon (officially).
While I would love to have full adjustment of the suspension with coil overs to fine tune the car, it truly wouldn’t be fair to a lot of people. I am a tinkerer, with a very good understanding of how suspension works and how it reacts to static changes.
I could go to vir, test friday, set car up just for VIR, and drop some time most likely. And the do the same at summit, or RA. And if there are sudden changes (rain, a gator that’s taller than expected) or something unexpected, I could change it to suit that on the spot.
Now with this, you now have more people running friday for the “tuning” part of test and tune, which cost money.
A lot of folks in the group can’t tell a spring adjuster from a connecting rod, so if their car is set up wrong, or let’s say, too low, for track conditions that puts then at a disavantage over me, or any other tinkerer. Now that person has to pay someone to tune their suspension for a track, and that cost more money.
So in the sense of fairness and keeping cost down, this will not work. Unfortunately. Besides the initial cost, it could drive the amount spent on "set-up and alignment through the roof, benefiting tinkerer and people with very high resources.
However, I wouldn’t mind stiffer springs all around. IF our shocks can take it.


#20

I don’t really care either way.

The formula has been very successful–we were the 2nd largest class at nats. Why fug with it?