BMW M3 Forum
BMW M3 Forum BMW M3 Gallery BMW M3 Reviews BMW M3 Social Groups BMW M3 Chat M3Forum Sponsors >>
Loading


Mobile M3forum
Go Back   BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X) > BMW M3 Discussions > E46 M3 (2001-2006)
Tire Rack Buy Winter Tires Now!
Not a member? Register Now!
Register Gallery All Albums Garage Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Calendar FAQ

E46 M3 (2001-2006) Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Sat, Feb-11-2017, 01:40:44 AM   #191
liam821
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 336
Reputation: 0 liam821 is on a distinguished road
Location: Portland

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

I also use a set of custom valved Bilstein mono-tube HD dampers in my Honda Civic eg race car. They're fantastic, especially when you consider the cost! I started with a brand new set for an Integra TypeR (I run a ITR style rear lower control arm) and sent them off to Bilstein. I told them what I wanted, the springs rates I run, and they did all the modifications for me. I'm an extremely happy customer.

Looking forward to seeing your results, OP, so far it looks awesome.
__________________
8v Audi S3 Glacier White on Black
e93 M3 Melbourne Red on Black Novillo leather
e46 M3 ZCP Interlagos Blue on Black M-cloth Imola Red in many many many pieces (I'm not dead yet project!)
e73 xDrive35d Platinum Gray Metallic on Cinnamon
Jump to top liam821 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Register now and remove these ads
Old Sun, Sep-16-2018, 04:26:32 AM   #192
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

Shock dyno graphs illustrating the effect of nitrogen gas pressure. Why isn't gas pressure more talked-about??

Since Eric and I have previously shared shock dynos in this thread, I wanted to add a few more here. Although they're not specific to the E46 M3, the concept (especially the level of nitrogen charge pressure) applies to our BMWs and relates to observations people have made about ride quality and handling behaviors.

I've come to realize how critically important it is to measure and understand the effect of nitrogen gas pressure on a damper's real-world behavior. In this post I'll be more brief and link to two graphs showing damper force vs. velocity with a short discussion. In a subsequent post, I'll go into more detail about why we need nitrogen pressure inside the damper, and what happens if it's too high. In short, you need high-enough nitrogen pressure inside your damper to prevent any dissolved air from 'boiling' and 'foaming' (which reduces the damper's effectiveness) but also you need low-enough nitrogen pressure so you don't 'lock' the damper and prevent the damper from opening!

The graphs below were provided to me by a customer using Bilstein PSS10 on his F80 328 M Sport. He had someone near him perform dyno tests and he asked me to analyze the results and make suggestions on what damper settings and spring rates to use, etc. The first graph has the gas force subtracted, as is the common practice. The second includes the effect of the ~80 lb gas force, which raises the compression force and reduces the rebound force. This is an across-the-board change in the damper's real-world behavior. I've kept the scales the same for both graph so it's apple to apples comparison.



Same damper setting as above, but now gas force NOT subtracted (actual real-world behavior):



High nitrogen pressure and the resulting high gas force has an IMMEDIATE and CONTINUOUS impact on how the suspension tracks the ground. The gas force causes jerk, which is a sudden change in the acceleration of the vehicle. Jerk reduces grip as well as ride quality (grip and ride quality are really synonymous).

Keep in mind that gas pressure of 40 lb or more on our front strut suspensions will feel very stiff because of the high ~1:1 motion ratio of forces from the strut conducted to the wheel (and vice versa).



Bottom-line, if you find a monotube uncomfortable, high gas pressure and the resulting high gas force / rod force will often be the primary (hidden) cause. Make sure to find out the gas pressure in your front AND rear dampers, and notice if it's too high... You can use the 'bathroom scale' test as EricSMG did to get a sense of gas force!

__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sun, Sep-16-2018, 05:18:11 AM   #193
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

This is the BMW E46 M3 'Ride Harmonizer' spreadsheet I've created with you folks in mind! Very proud to share it here for the first time!



FCM Elite E46 M3 Ride Harmonizer FRC and Ride Frequency spreadsheet




There are various inputs such vehicle weight, driver weight, weight distribution, tire / wheel weight, spring rates, sway bar dimensions, AND bump stop rates (you can approximate 200 lb/in for OE front, 100 lb/in for Bilstein black and OE rear, etc.).

I've created three sections which serve different purposes. This topic deserves its own thread but I figured to introduce here and then go into more detail later.

For those who want to understand the features in more depth, you can view this video and follow along. For a short summary, you can enter a few values for your car (such as car & driver weight) or leave those default. Then enter the spring rates and then examine ride frequencies that result. Our goal for better handling and better ride is to pursue 'Flat Ride', where the rear ride frequency is at least a few percent higher than the front. I recommend setting the resolution to at least 480p.


I've found that for our BMWs we NEED to pick a rear spring rate that creates Flat Ride, and that often means we need a larger front bar with a stock rear bar. Most 'matched' sway bar kits (where you add an aftermarket front AND rear bar) end up with TOO MUCH rear roll stiffness which forces you to use a TOO SOFT rear spring and that causes pitches (which messes up the ride, handling, grip, and your brain - literally!). Pitching is literally a cause for physical and psychological dis-ease and the US Navy studied it extensively back in the 1960s.



Bump stop behavior is essential to understand and account for, and damper behavior will contribute to overall stiffness, plus can bias the suspension toward jacking down (which makes the bump stops engage more often). I'll create another thread and cover more details, but feel free to make use of it, ask some questions here. It'll help you select spring rates so Flat Ride can work for you!

Shaikh
__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Nov-06-2018, 06:59:36 PM   #194
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

A couple BMW E46 M3 front Ohlins DFV shock dynos. There's an artifact in the '6 clicks from full stiff' test so don't panic about the offset at 0 inches per sec.



The gas force measured on the E46 M3 Ohlins DFV front was 54 lb. That's quite high for a strut and assuming a 14mm shaft would equate to about 225 psi fill pressure.



===

Now, see the difference with what we did on Eric_SMG's front FCM Elite Bilstein Stage 2 setup. First, even at FULL SOFT once you're outside the low-speed shock velocity range, the Ohlins is ALWAYS JACKING DOWN on any bump or dip! And who runs their Ohlins at full soft?! Not many I'd bet.



The FCM Elite Stage 2 setup has a bit more mid speed compression, lower high speed compression slope, and less mid speed rebound as well as less high speed rebound. This combination gives both better bottoming resistance on medium bumps and better compliance on larger bumps, plus the suspension is 'resetting' back to a neutral point since it has very little jacking down happening at very high velocities. It wants to be driven hard, and will be forgiving on rougher / broken surfaces especially driving at the limit. And yes, that means our setup will be FASTER than Ohlins on track as you aren't being launching into the air or jacked into the bump stops if you try and use the berms / curbing.



For gas force, there's a big difference as well. Eric's FCM Stage 2 front struts are about 23 lb gas force while the Ohlins are 54 lb. These are important differences you'll definitely feel with the 20 lb lower gas force and lower high speed compression slope plus MUCH less rebound high speed slope giving FAR better large bump compliance and small feature, rough-surface tracking with FCM vs. Ohlins!

I couldn't test the Ohlins higher than 5 in/sec because I'd need to disassemble the entire strut (and adjuster mechanism) which I didn't want to do. Just note the overall curve shape and the ratio of compression to rebound damping. The Ohlins compression shape looks pretty good, though could be a bit firmer in the low and mid speed range. But yeah, that rebound is quite stiff. With Flat Ride spring rates present you don't need as much damping anyway so more reason to soften the damping and enjoy the grip benefits but the high speed rebound isn't blowing off very well...

Knowing / seeing all this, if you have Ohlins or decide to get them, I'd definitely ask if they can lower the gas pressure to 150-175 psi-g *IF* that won't compromise the damping performance. When I back-calculate Eric's front gas fill pressure ended up about 150 psi-g. They might not want to or be able to use that lower fill pressure.

For the FCM setups, we're able to get lower gas force although the Bilstein shafts are 11mm while the Ohlins seems to be 14mm so no matter what you did to lower fill pressure, the Ohlins will ALWAYS have higher gas force than I can get with the Bilstein. Plus, as a reminder, we can incorporate the Ripple Reducer modification with a few drilled holes (and makes the damper track marbled/micro-rough surfaces better than the Ohlins).

Relevant video where I point out the difference in high speed compression slope with 8mm (non-adjustable Bilstein) post vs 12mm (adjustable / Ohlins DFV or Bilstein PSS9) post:


I normally like larger shaft diameter if you're trying to build a lot of compression, but with the nearly 1:1 front motion ratio on our BMWs, we don't NEED a lot of compression for the car to work properly - our dampers can actually use lower forces than a factory Miata (with its lower 0.6:1 front motion ratio). So an 11mm shaft delivers PLENTY of oil displacement for our needs! A larger shaft becomes a liability when you're aiming for maximum traction and lower gas pressure. This is a reason a lot of 'high end' suspensions for BMW, Porsche, etc. end up with VERY high gas pressures - the excessively large strut / shock shafts diameter create very high gas force the cause jerk and harshness. This includes Moton, AST, MCS, etc. that use non-inverted design and 19mm or 22mm shafts! Holy high gas force, Batman!

I also noted fairly limited droop travel on the Ohlins which means the spring needs to be preloaded quite significantly for a street-friendly ride height. A shorter spring would help this and would be an option for someone who wanted to a more track-focused setup. But the damper bias toward rebound and fairly high gas force at the strut are definitely disadvantages of the setup.

These graphs pertain to the E46 M3 front. I'll measure the Ohlins DFV rear when I can do that as well.
__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services

Last edited by ShaikhA; Tue, Nov-06-2018 at 07:05:55 PM.
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Nov-06-2018, 09:01:57 PM   #195
M3 dude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 401
Reputation: 0 M3 dude is on a distinguished road

Australia




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

that's an interesting finding!
MCA suspension uses a 12mm shaft for the front of their e46 M3 kit, and sure enough when i tried to order top hats, i was told it was way too thin; so i had to make adapter sleeves to fit the GC street camber plates.
Jump to top M3 dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Tue, Nov-06-2018, 10:03:59 PM   #196
Obioban
Moderator
 
Obioban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 36,583
In the garage:
Reputation: 54 Obioban has a spectacular aura about
Location: SE PA

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

I just talked to the guy I was going to have rebuild my ohlins for the new spring rates— he said 150-175 psi is no problem (and that that’s what he uses for his race setups) and that on his shock dyno they’re good down to ~90-100 psi.
__________________

Current Cars: 2005 IR/IR M3, 2001 LMB/blk M5, 03 530i, 04 M3 wagon, and some boring stuff
Past cars: 04 M3, 96 M3, S50B32 e36 M3 CM race car
Jump to top Obioban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Nov-07-2018, 01:12:59 AM   #197
EricSMG
40 something
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 10,902
Reputation: 0 EricSMG is on a distinguished road
Location: San Diego

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaikhA View Post
For gas force, there's a big difference as well. Eric's FCM Stage 2 front struts are about 23 lb gas force while the Ohlins are 54 lb. These are important differences you'll definitely feel with the 20 lb lower gas force and lower high speed compression slope plus MUCH less rebound high speed slope giving FAR better large bump compliance and small feature, rough-surface tracking with FCM vs. Ohlins!
Hey Shaikh!

I much prefer the Stage 1 valving all around. Front/rear, comp/rebound. For Stage 2 we went too soft and the car got a little floaty.

For reference, you may want to use the Stage 1 dynos for comparison. You'll remember that Stage 1 has a good bit more low speed rebound (and compression) and this gives the car a very tight/locked down/responsive feeling to steering inputs and crests in the road at speed. Combine this with your ripple reducer and lower gas pressure and Stage 1 was the ultimate sweet spot - maximum control without the harshness... but firm. In my quest for perfection I had you go too far to reduce the 'firmness' but... we went too far (Stage 2).

Oh, also - we went too short on the front bumpstops with Stage 2. Again, Stage 1 bumpstop length (longer) w/3mm packer was perfect.
__________________


'04 SG/Black 6MT || '04 JB/IR SMG

Last edited by EricSMG; Wed, Nov-07-2018 at 01:17:06 AM.
Jump to top EricSMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Wed, Nov-07-2018, 08:27:29 PM   #198
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricSMG View Post
Hey Shaikh!

I much prefer the Stage 1 valving all around. Front/rear, comp/rebound. For Stage 2 we went too soft and the car got a little floaty.

For reference, you may want to use the Stage 1 dynos for comparison. You'll remember that Stage 1 has a good bit more low speed rebound (and compression) and this gives the car a very tight/locked down/responsive feeling to steering inputs and crests in the road at speed.
Eric! That's interesting to hear, although I am looking at the dynos and the Ver 1 fronts actually had LESS low speed compression and rebound than Ver 2, but MORE mid and high speed rebound than you have now on Ver 2! This suggests to me you were noticing / appreciating the original valving I did with more high speed damping and also slightly more bleed / Ripple Reducer. As you observed, the original front damping was more compliant on smaller features while having more control on larger amplitude movements (crests/dips). The Ver 2 fronts have more 'jerk' via the added low speed damping which ironically fights against the sway bar's ability to articulate with the suspension.

I noticed a similar result when I went to stiffer springs AND the GC Race front bar. During that setup change, I decided to actually SOFTEN the front damping (by drilling another Ripple Reducer hole!) instead of STIFFENING the front as 'any sane person would do.' I wanted to see what happens when I had a lot of roll stiffness via springs and sways but didn't emphasize damping to 'control it' (because know now that Flat Ride does so much of that 'control!').

The front end dug into turns even better, despite being numerically 'under-damped.' I feel a secret of optimizing front grip is to minimize low-speed damping and prevent jacking down. The softer Ver 1 low speed damping decreased the side-to-side coupling of the two front tires and the ratcheting that results as the sway bar flexes and the damping are resisting that flex. Recall that we now know there's a sizeable roll stiffness contribution from the front sway bar (~58% of total OE roll stiffness!) which means anything that causes more 'jerk' causes less compliance and grip on the road or in corners. It was revealing to me in my experiment with softer low speed despite more spring and sway bar stiffness that a stiffer setup was actually faster with slightly less damping than a conventionally-minded mechanical engineer would think if they're not actually noting the effect on grip.

Quote:
Combine this with your ripple reducer and lower gas pressure and Stage 1 was the ultimate sweet spot - maximum control without the harshness... but firm. In my quest for perfection I had you go too far to reduce the 'firmness' but... we went too far (Stage 2).
Excellent - we're in sync with our description, although up front at least, it's softer low speed with firmer mid & high-speed damping that you liked. Compliance and bottoming resistance.

===

On the rears, the whole picture makes even more sense. In reviewing the differences between Ver 1 and Ver 2 rear, I noticed something interesting that I've been paying attention to more in the past few years... the rebound-to-compression ratio. On the original Ver 1, I went for a slight amount of jacking down which you found to help settle the car faster than the Ver 2 (current) which is softer overall damping and no jacking down.

It's much easier to get the rears out to play with and much of my experimentation after our initial visit has been with rear rebound-to-compression bias. As you noticed the added high speed rebound of the original Ver 1 helps improve settling response. You don't need much and I could do a Version 3 which would be slightly less rebound bias than Ver 1 but with more overall damping than Ver 2.

I also like the faster settling response on larger bumps with my own Ver 1-style damping, with front at neutral-jacking and rear slightly rebound-biased. No matter how much bias I use, it's FAR LESS than OE or aftermarket (like Koni, Bilstein, Ohlins, etc.) so we're still in the 'orders of magnitude' improvement over anything else out there! Those are all WAY over-damped on rear rebound and a reason they uniformly ride more harshly and have worse grip compared to what I'm doing with Bilstein digressive pistons.

BTW, your observations tie into my thoughts about the rear damping being critical in setting up the overall vehicle character. I'm finding that a slight rebound bias at the rear, with neutral jacking at the front, gives the most neutral handling, minimal understeer, and fast settling that doesn't cause undue harshness on rough roads. The best of everything, with just a little compromise on pure comfort.

For someone who wants a 'full rally' or 'pure comfort' setup I would make sure there's no jacking down at all and increase overall damping ratios to provide more total damper force. That's like your current Version 2. If I added more overall rear compression and rebound damping to your current setup you'd definitely find it less floaty. Various options available for getting the sweet spot you want.

Quote:
Oh, also - we went too short on the front bumpstops with Stage 2. Again, Stage 1 bumpstop length (longer) w/3mm packer was perfect.
I read you on the bump stop length, and I have that noted With softer springs requiring more suspension travel, you'd want the bump stop to engage over a longer distance than you would with stiffer springs. The new VD-KBO (velocity-dependent KBO) piston I've designed will help add some very-high-speed compression damping to help decelerate hard bottoming events, like a rally car would.

You could either just switch back to the longer stop, or add a 20mm segment of a 'black' (soft density) Bilstein stop to the shortened original white (medium density) your Bilstein HDs came with. That'd be an easy drop-in for you - just remove the strut insert and add the new bump stop segment. It's also a two-stage bump stop - initially soft, then firming up with more compression / bottoming.

Thanks for your feedback! Let's do a project on your F80! Or find me someone up here to work with!
__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services

Last edited by ShaikhA; Wed, Nov-07-2018 at 08:32:26 PM.
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Thu, Nov-22-2018, 11:07:52 PM   #199
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

It's time to talk turkey ... and see what the MCS really looks like on the inside! Well, I don't have damper gas pressures, but I can guess at them.

I was provided these graphs in PDF format by an M3Forum member:

MCS_2W_with_remote_reservoir_Rebound_sweep.pdf

MCS_2W_with_remote_reservoir_Compression_sweep.pdf

My understanding is they're for the BMW E46 M3, hence relevant to this shock dyno thread. I did some calculations on the high speed compression and rebound slope, the overall rebound-to-bump ratios, and estimated gas force based on shaft diameter and likely fill pressure. I'll make more comments over the weekend, but you can see what's going on and start to look under the hood at what's really going on, beyond marketing hype.

OE E46 M3 Sachs front vs. E36 M3 Moton Clubsport (full soft) - older Moton very similar to newer MCS!

I noted that the OE E46 M3 Sachs looks VERY SIMILAR to the MCS in terms of the compression curve! I also had data from an E36 M3 Moton Clubsport which I included below. So, as many manufacturers do, it seems MCS took the OE damper and based their design off that. I get it, it's easy, but it's not sophisticated.

Rebound sweep with my comments:



Compression sweep with my comments:



===

My observations are:

1. The pistons are a cheap linear, not nearly as sophisticated as the COB digressive that Bilstein provides and that I use on all street and track setups. Linear pistons are lower-cost to make but have the downside of producing too much force at higher shaft speeds, creating both jacking down on the rebound side and launching up on the compression side.

2. Compression high-speed slope is 11 lb per in/sec. That's not very impressive and isn't 'blowing-off' which you'd want for a more compliant / curb-friendly track or street setup. This high amount of force build-up on the MCS is expected with the linear damping and no clear blow-off occurring.

3. The rebound high-speed slope is 32 lb/ips. That means you're building 3X as much rebound force as compression! Given the baseline damper tune at full soft for both rebound and compression, the MCS is going to jack down anywhere above 20 in/sec damper velocities. That also assumes you're running FULL SOFT on rebound. No matter what your damper setting, this MCS will compromise grip and ride quality to give you needlessly 'sporty' handling.

4. The gas force wasn't indicated but based on estimates based on a 22mm front strut shaft and prior experience with AST and Moton (the latter most closely related to the MCS) I expect gas forces to be 80 lb or more with 150 psi nitrogen fill pressure. That's QUITE HIGH and will cause 'jerk' as I've discussed in many videos recently. We're able to get 25-30 lb gas force with our methods and Bilsteins (that have an inverted design and effective 11mm shaft which allows us to generate PLENTY of compression force if/as needed).

5. Spring rates can vary but everyone I've seen mentioned an MCS setup will be experiencing pitch. As I've said many times, when you have pitch from your spring rate choice you NEED more damping. Fix the pitch and you'll find yourself wanting softer damper settings. I think 10speed already noted this with this setup when he went to Flat Ride on his MCS (IIRC).

===

I do have a question - what are the MCS doing at higher shock velocities? 10 in/sec isn't really 'high-speed' when you're considering track use, or even what common street and backroads can generate for suspension velocities.
I'd want to see dynos up to 20 in/sec (my Roehrig 2VS can test up to 22 in/sec). From what I can tell up there doesn't seem to be any significant 'blow-off' behavior happening which would provide better compliance on curbing like our KBO (Kerb Blow-Off) valve does for our Bilstein-based setups.

If someone in the Bay Area has a set of MCS they'd want me to do a more thorough test on, I can do that. What I see in these graphs reflects comments of people who have used them, and what I've observed in videos. The emphasis on 'large shafts to provide immediate control' unfortunately comes at a cost.

This is older-school tuning philosophy and is being passed (literally) by a more comprehensive, detailed examination and application of what really produces grip, where control comes from (hint, think Flat Ride more than just crank up the dampers!), and how you can get more from the tires without having to constantly 'saw' back and forth at the wheel because muh big shock shaft, yo! and muh crazy gas force!

I think someone mentioned there's a digressive piston available. If so, and you're not crippled by Spec class rules, then eventually I can suggest improvements to make the MCS better, within the limits of what they're willing to do with their hardware.

Maybe they'd even drill a hole or two to incorporate a beneficial feature such as I've done with our Ripple Reducer. I haven't heard anything like that discussed by MCS. I've proven this works for more grip and less ride discomfort. Maybe once day they'll modernize the internals sufficiently to provide closer-to-optimized suspensions.

===

I'm thankful for the gift of good health, a great community here, awesome family and friends, wonderful Bilstein digressive pistons, and being able to design FCM Elite-optimized suspensions with low gas pressure, KBO, and Ripple Reducer!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Fri, Nov-23-2018, 09:02:29 PM   #200
ShaikhA
Fat Cat Motorsports
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 165
Reputation: 0 ShaikhA is on a distinguished road
Location: Redwood City

United States




Default Re: Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG/IRM3 View Post
Just read your comments on MCS dampers in the other thread and you left off one very important point - they flat frigging work exceedingly well as evidenced by the huge number of autocrossers and road racers who have been very successful using them. You fail to point out that they are a race shock that is also a versatile dual purpose shock and can provide a very good ride even with stiff springs. Would I recommend them to someone who values street ride over performance? No,of course not but you never go there. But they are not the antiquated,low tech damper you present them as. Your failure to acknowledge the success they've experienced in motorsport activities is a disservice to your readers and detracts from your overall presentation which begins to sound like a marketing/sales pitch.

Having said that, I think your spreadsheet is excellent and a valuable tool to evaluate the effects of suspension set up and options. And I commend you on developing and providing that to the forum. I have no doubt that you are an expert suspension engineer but there are others as well who have earned outstanding reputations based on the results attained with their products and advice. I think you completely fail to acknowledge that,perhaps because of the emphasis on ride comfort. Again,I don't discount the flat ride concept and damping considerations when it comes to ride comfort. In fact,if/when I go back to a stock/stockish suspension your Bilsteins will be very high on the list of options. So,I hope you take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

Finally,I have MCS 2WNR dampers on my E46 M3 and I am extremely happy with them. My priorities are autocross and track and the suspension is a quantum leap forward from my previous AST 4100s. I love the precise adjustibility and chassis control and grip they provide. And,I do not launch off of curbing or bumps - quite the opposite in fact. They soak them up without upsetting the car. After an event I set the compression to soft and enjoy a pretty comfortable ride home. Unfortunately,your evaluation of the shock dynos for the remote reservoir MCS dampers would lead someone to believe my experience is not possible.
SG/IRM3 - I appreciate your comments and am copying your post plus my reply in this thread, where it belong. I know this is a sensitive area on various fronts and I am not 'slamming' anyone nor attempting to omit any necessary perspectives.

The numerical analysis I did (and will do more of, for MCS and other dampers) cannot be objected to. I point out facts and draw conclusions about the impact of those facts. If you look and ask around, there are drivers who recognized some of what I've said on MCS, Koni, TC Kline, etc. prior to me posting and giving an analysis of them. This is why I wanted to work with EricSMG because he'd tested various setups and had an excellent empirical, seat-of-the-pants knowledge of what worked and what didn't - not just for ride comfort, but for handling and control.

In that thread, I've already posted various manufacturer's dynos graphs and will continue to. People deserve to understand the fundamentals of what they're using, instead of being told 'Racer X won on these, go buy them!' This community is more sophisticated than that. So I'm looking at every damper I can for the M3 and providing a detailed analysis of pros and cons. Current or future owners can decide if they want to make changes to optimize their suspensions for better results, whether more comfort or lower lap times (or both).

Racers can and do 'win' on many different types of setups, that doesn't prove they are optimized. I am not saying MCS aren't effective but I am saying I see clear technical disadvantages which I've demonstrated. My main objection is the premise that they are the 'end-all, be-all' many people would like to make them out to be. Some people also perceive the presence of a knob and associate it with the 'need' to use it for 'better results.' This is a misconception that happens across the enthusiast & racing world, though usually in lower level racing when the instrumentation and analysis to perform fine-optimization isn't possible. So, the vendor gives you a knob or two, making you feel you have the ability to 'tune as you like' but you CAN'T change things that are crucial like reducing damper gas pressure to absolutely minimum levels, softening high-speed rebound or decreasing high-speed compression to really optimal levels.

It was to address the drawbacks I pointed out in MCS (and also saw in many Bilstein or Koni or TC Kline or KW setups) that I discovered technological advantages like Ripple Reducer, KBO, understanding why Flat Ride matters for most race cars, gas pressure minimization. I wasn't thinking about comfort, but lowest lap times. Focusing on optimal tire grip instead of 'maximum control' leads to benefits no matter how you use the vehicle! That's why I call it Ride Harmony and it's really the best of all worlds without needing a knob!

I'm not emphasizing 'ride comfort' but 'tire contact patch.' There is still a misunderstanding about what makes a car fast - and it isn't having knobs, or stiff springs, or stiff sway bars. For the ULTIMATE optimized racing setup, you need to think of how the tires are being treated and minimize unnecessary JERK to them. The MCS is NOT minimizing jerk, and that's why, on a technical basis, it is not a 'pinnacle' of suspension design.

The high damper gas force pushing up on the shaft of the MCS is a big drawback to a truly optimized suspension. There's probably nothing they can do about that given the large 22mm shaft diameter, but using Flat Ride and softer damper settings would allow lower nitrogen charge pressure and therefore lower rod force, which would improve grip. There's no argument on this point as I've shown in multiple videos and many people have felt the benefit of lower gas force.

If you like how your MCS deals with curbs, that's great. I can tell you with certainty - based on the graphs I've seen and feedback from customers familiar with both - that your MCS doesn't handle bumps and rough surfaces as well as our FCM Elite Stage 3 KBO setup does. That's just physics, with some of the math already shown.

A true racing setup doesn't NEED to have external valves, or knobs. Simply because a damper has knobs or a reservoir or you can 'change nitrogen pressure for fine-tuning' doesn't mean those features are actually making you faster or that the damper is optimized. I know for a fact that each of those variables introduces problems, having designed my own sophisticated external compression-adjustable reservoir and built many dozens of racing setups both single- and double-adjustable. I got better results for myself and my customers when I focused on optimizing the damper's behavior without relying on knobs to 'tweak' things into place. The dyno testing and calculations I do are more effective to dial a setup in than random track-side changes. Those changes are much more psychological than actual benefit. I'm saying this having been 'pro-knob' for a while until I realized the technical drawbacks common to 'racing dampers' as they're usually advertised.

I'm glad you appreciate the spreadsheet and have made use of it. Perhaps you'll test the benefits of Flat Ride as 10speed has already done. One day you might even find that a softer damper setting with Flat Ride spring rates will be faster than 'adding a few clicks' at the track which many people feel is necessary but ends up slowing the car down.

Your experience is valid to you, absolutely. But in taking away marketing and brand rah rah, I'm pointing out the technical aspects of the MCS dampers that are not refutable. The FCM Elite technologies I've developed and integrated are superior to what MCS is doing, whether for pure racing, street driving, or both. Because I care about the M3 owner, I'm sharing my findings so that they (and even MCS) can make further improvements or at least test for themselves to see what improvements are possible with their design choices.

I didn't get into suspensions because I wanted to start a company, but because I NEEDED to know the TRUTH about how they worked. No one else who sells products has shared or probably will share as much as I have and still intend to. My goal is to have everyone buying an aftermarket setup be INFORMED as to the pros and cons, to ASK BETTER QUESTIONS of the vendor, so they won't have to suffer from a lack of knowledge under any misconceptions.

By the way, do you know the rod force / gas force on your dampers? If you're willing to do a test like EricSMG did, I'd be curious what you find.


P.S. Also, at this point in 2018, using a linear rebound curve IS old-school. Same with linear compression. But it's cheaper to make a linear piston than that something like that beautiful Bilstein digressive COB, an engineering masterpiece!

__________________


FCM Elite Ride Harmony suspension spreadsheet for: E46 M3, Shock dyno testing / driving feedback: E46 M3 (with Eric_SMG)

Take our short Ride Harmony survey and earn a credit on FCM Elite Bilstein damper services

Last edited by ShaikhA; Fri, Nov-23-2018 at 09:19:18 PM.
Jump to top ShaikhA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:56:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
M3Forum.com and M3forum.net is in no way sponsored, endorsed or affiliated by or with BMW NA / BMW AG or any of it's subsidiaries or vendors.
BMW and M3 (E90 M3 | E92 M3 | E93 M3 | E46 M3 | E36 M3 | E30 M3) are registered trademarks of BMW AG.
M3Forum Terms of Service
Copyright 1999-2017 M3Forum.com
Discussing Shock dynos, Fat Cat Motorsports and custom valved Bilstiens in the E46 M3 (2001-2006) Forum - Engine: S54 - Max Hp: 333 hp at 7,900 rpm / 262 lb/ft at 4,900 rpm
Total Produced: 45,000+ - Years Produced: 2001 to 2006. at BMW M3 Forum.com (E30 M3 | E36 M3 | E46 M3 | E92 M3 | F80/X)