Non-remote to remote: street benefits?

[jfritz27]

So last season was first with the MCS 2WNR setup, with spring rates of 800 / 700(c/o). After some click-tweaking it was feeling really nice on track by the end of the season, so all good there.

That said, car is also my daily driver, and the street manners are wearing on me a bit. I often feel like I'm hurting the car when going over bumps -- she's stiff. And the roads here are fairly crap. I know that I basically just need to feel it for myself, but can anyone chime in on the relative street comfort benefit (mild? moderate?) of switching to a 3-way remote setup? I understand the added volume helps with compliance. But if I keep the same springs, can I expect much of a comfort benefit? Obviously with 3-way I could set both HC and LC to full-soft; does that also buy me more compliance compared with my 2WNR set at full soft, aside from the fact of greater fluid/gas volume? Put another way, if you were to compare a 2W REMOTE vs a 3W REMOTE (same springs, both set to full soft), would the 3WR give more compliance in compression?

Thanks

[markw10702]

Your current spring rates are rather high for street comfort IMO. I am assuming you will continue to track your car, however if that is not the case, I would drop your spring rates to something that will give you a more comfortable ride given your road conditions.

The 3WR might provide more compliance given you can adjust the shaft movement under low speed conditions. Remember low speed compression comes into play at shaft velocities between 0 - 4 inches per second, whereas high speed compression adjustments come into play at 4 inches per second and beyond. The real issue here is unless you are a suspension engineer or handling dynamics guru you will never really extract the full benefit of a 3WR damper on the street.

I am assuming you are impacting the poor areas of road you drive on at speeds more likely to be managed by high-speed compression rather than low-speed compression thereby negating the benefits of the additional low speed compression adjustment. Have you tried adjusting your existing dampers towards the softer side on both R and C.

The remote canisters provide better fluid temperature control but the benefit here is really only seen under race conditions.

IMO the real question is whether the cost to purchase new 3WR dampers worth it to you. Unfortunately your 2WNR cannot be converted to 3WR.

[jfritz27]

Originally Posted by markw10702

Your current spring rates are rather high for street comfort IMO. I am assuming you will continue to track your car, however if that is not the case, I would drop your spring rates to something that will give you a more comfortable ride given your road conditions.

The 3WR might provide more compliance given you can adjust the shaft movement under low speed conditions. Remember low speed compression comes into play at shaft velocities between 0 - 4 inches per second, whereas high speed compression adjustments come into play at 4 inches per second and beyond. The real issue here is unless you are a suspension engineer or handling dynamics guru you will never really extract the full benefit of a 3WR damper on the street.

I am assuming you are impacting the poor areas of road you drive on at speeds more likely to be managed by high-speed compression rather than low-speed compression thereby negating the benefits of the additional low speed compression adjustment. Have you tried adjusting your existing dampers towards the softer side on both R and C.

The remote canisters provide better fluid temperature control but the benefit here is really only seen under race conditions.

IMO the real question is whether the cost to purchase new 3WR dampers worth it to you. Unfortunately your 2WNR cannot be converted to 3WR.

Thanks. Yes, certainly plan to continue to track. And I already have my current setup at full-soft settings.

The only reason I would THINK about springing for a new setup would be if the 3WR were to give me significantly better compliance with the same spring rates. The street stuff definitely pertains to high-speed compression as I understand it; but what I didn't know is whether there is something about a 3WR damper (with its HC and LC adjustments) that when set to full soft for both yields signifiant more compliance in compression as compared with 2WR, or my current 2WNR setup (both set at full soft).

There is also the factor of being able to adjust gas pressures, which I forgot to mention.

[f80tanz]

Subscribed- great question. I am upgrading my suspension and having similar thoughts as well. My setup will be at most 80% street, 20% track. x.shell M3SQRD , you guys are two who I value your opinions and who might have something to add. x.shell , I’ve read some of your other suspension threads where you talk about changing out spring rates to achieve the comfort level you wanted on the street. I also saw that you got the JRZ 3-way setup, but moved back to the 2-way. Was that for ride comfort purpose?

Side note- jfritz27 , watched a couple of your NJMP videos to jog my memory of Thunderbolt layout, thanks for posting.

[x.shell]

Originally Posted by f80tanz

Subscribed- great question. I am upgrading my suspension and having similar thoughts as well. My setup will be at most 80% street, 20% track. x.shell M3SQRD , you guys are two who I value your opinions and who might have something to add. x.shell , I’ve read some of your other suspension threads where you talk about changing out spring rates to achieve the comfort level you wanted on the street. I also saw that you got the JRZ 3-way setup, but moved back to the 2-way. Was that for ride comfort purpose?

Side note- jfritz27 , watched a couple of your NJMP videos to jog my memory of Thunderbolt layout, thanks for posting.

The 3-way was better in every metric than the 2-way for comfort and street driving.

BUT…

and this is a big “but”… it’s not worth it.

The 3-way come with a whole host of other issues that make it a pain in the ass. The biggest pita is installation. The routing of the remote canisters in itself requires some imagination and planning. Do not forego the quick release connectors for the front AND rear, no matter what anyone says. And you also have to have your own solution for Nitrogen. It’s true that you can have a shop help you with all this. But it’s gonna end up costing you an arm/leg. I did a ton of research and decided that I needed to have all the tools and nitrogen myself — and I’m glad I did it. Basically, if you’re trying to save money here and there, don’t go the 3-way route. Be prepared to spend money.

It’s true that I’m back on the 2-way. But not because I wanted to. The 3-ways developed a squeak that was annoying. It turns out that JRZ had an issue with the bearing seals in the front dampers and they had a recall kit to fix it. So I had to take it out and send it in for servicing. When this happened, I was so glad I held on to my 2-ways. I was able to put them back in with ease because all the parts are plug and play. Since getting the 3-ways back, I have been meaning to install them again — I just haven’t had time.

In terms of stiffness, clicking the damper setting to full soft won’t make your street driving experience comfortable. You have to adjust spring rates.

What I discovered was that I can change the front springs to get my desired comfort level AFTER determining the rear spring rate. My solution turned out to be what BMW knew all along — the spring rate ratio front/back (on divorce set-up) should be about 1:2.

So I ended up with a rear spring rate of 1000 — this never changes. The fronts I can easily change out according to my mood. The best for street driving spring rate is 450. I’m using 500 though. If I want something that feels more track ready, I put in my 600 or 650.

As soon as I did the 1:2 front/rear ratio, the comfort level and behavior of the suspension on the street became so flat and compliment. No more bounciness and run away oscillations. For the track your requirements might be different. But just swap the front springs. Easy peasy.

Since coming to my conclusion about the spring rates, I was surprised how well this worked with the 2-ways as well. I spent so much money chasing an optimal street ride, that I thought my solution was gonna be going the 3-way route. Not so. When I put my 2-ways back in with the 1:2 spring rates, I was so pleasantly surprised that how comfortable it was. It was like the 2-ways were telling me that I finally got it right.

So many shops just drop in 600/800 front/rear. And I kept chasing this ratio and tweaking the dampers thinking that the dampers were the issue. It’s not. The correct spring rates will get you mostly there for a comfortable flat ride — not the dampers. That ratio is around 1:2 or 450/1000 front/back.

That’s my experience anyways. Sorry for the long reply.

[b_w.]

I moved to the 2wr from 2wnr over the winter. My understanding is the ability to adjust canister pressure is the biggest advantage for street ability vs nr. Will see when it leaves the garage next month.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jfritz27

Thanks. Yes, certainly plan to continue to track. And I already have my current setup at full-soft settings.

The only reason I would THINK about springing for a new setup would be if the 3WR were to give me significantly better compliance with the same spring rates. The street stuff definitely pertains to high-speed compression as I understand it; but what I didn't know is whether there is something about a 3WR damper (with its HC and LC adjustments) that when set to full soft for both yields signifiant more compliance in compression as compared with 2WR, or my current 2WNR setup (both set at full soft).

There is also the factor of being able to adjust gas pressures, which I forgot to mention.

Remote dampers have increased compression travel because the floating gas separator piston and pressure chamber are moved to the remote reservoir. Compression valve stack also is moved to the remote reservoir. MCS (and others but not all) remote reservoirs allow for reservoir gas pressure changes via a Schrader valve. Pressure can be set to 100-275 psi. Adjusting reservoir pressure to 100 psi (probably could go lower on the street because its purpose in a monotube damper is to prevent cavitation especially at higher temps which is really not a problem/concern on the street). This can make a significant improvement in street ride quality because you’re reducing the gas pressure force which acts like a “preloaded spring” - piston rod doesn’t start to compress until this gas lifting force is exceeded. Low reservoir pressure allows the damper to compress sooner on smaller bumps and, therefore, improves ride quality.

Range of compression damping is generally wider (as is the range of spring rates) in a remote damper and the high-speed blow-off valve is usually superior. Gives engineers/designers more freedom when the compression valve stack is separated from the main piston. Both of these can improve street ride quality. One allows for setting lower compression damping and the other makes absorbing impacts/bumps (just like riding curbs on track) much better than non-remotes.

2W vs. 3W - having the ability to independently adjust LSC and HSC provides so much more freedom when dialing in suspension setups. Setups are always a compromise because different sections of a track have competing damper requirements. Separating HSC and LSC helps minimize setup compromises. This also applies to street setups, too. With a 2W you dump the C setting, which primarily controls HSC, and it provides more compliance in both control of weight transfer (braking, cornering and acceleration) and unsprung mass (wheel-brake assemblies). Ride quality improves with reduced R and C damping settings but you don’t have direct control of LSC. So you may find the car moving around more slowly than you like even on the street. Having the independent LSC in the 3W allows you to adjust (increase or decrease relative to a 2W setup) the control of pitch and roll motion more to your liking without really changing overall ride quality.

I’ve had 2WNR and 2WR setups on my f82 and there’s no comparison between the two on street and track. I’m running 2WR setups on our M240ix (500/800 lbf/in divorced rear, 100 psi res pressure), which is my wife’s daily driver, e92 M3 (600/900 lbf/in divorced rear, 100/150 psi st/trk res pressure) and f82 (700/1100 lbf/in divorced rear, 100/175 psi st/trk res pressure, have rear c/o setup ready to be installed). The M240ix has been setup for street use and, even with 500/800 spring rates, its street ride is so far superior to our e92 M3 with JRZ RS1 with 350/620 spring rates AND our 100% stock g20 330ix (track handling package). It even rides better than our R56 Mini Cooper S with Ohlins R&T 300/300 spring rates. Would a 3W improve things? Absolutely. However, I decided it was better to get 3 2WR setups instead of 1-2 3WR setups. I’ve encountered no major setup issues with 2WRs on the tracks I go to and I am extremely happy with the street ride quality provided by the 2WRs.

Rear Divorced vs. Coilover - there’s really no measurable difference in performance between these rear setups as long as you can get the spring rate and useable spring length you need to run a divorced setup. Definitely no difference in ride quality.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by x.shell

So many shops just drop in 600/800 front/rear. And I kept chasing this ratio and tweaking the dampers thinking that the dampers were the issue. It’s not. The correct spring rates will get you mostly there for a comfortable flat ride — not the dampers. That ratio is around 1:2 or 450/1000 front/back.

Flat ride is one tuning philosophy, not the only tuning philosophy. Inferior dampers can only handle a flat ride. I’m not aware of a single high-end damper manufacturer that provides springs with their dampers that runs a setup close to a flat-ride setup. Ohlins R&T initial release for the f8x had rates close to a flat-ride but subsequent releases, including dedicated track versions, have rates farther away from flat-ride rates. TTX setups, even the GT4, use rates that are far from flat-ride rates. Even setups for high-end EDC plug-n-play street setups do not use flat-ride spring rates. I’m not saying flat-ride is bad. I’m pointing out that it’s not just one high-end damper manufacturer that does not use/run flat-ride setups.

[x.shell]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

Flat ride is one tuning philosophy, not the only tuning philosophy. Inferior dampers can only handle a flat ride. I’m not aware of a single high-end damper manufacturer that provides springs with their dampers that runs a setup close to a flat-ride setup. Ohlins R&T initial release for the f8x had rates close to a flat-ride but subsequent releases, including dedicated track versions, have rates farther away from flat-ride rates. TTX setups, even the GT4, use rates that are far from flat-ride rates. Even setups for high-end EDC plug-n-play street setups use flat-ride spring rates. I’m not saying flat-ride is bad. I’m pointing out that it’s not just one high-end damper manufacturer that does not use/run flat-ride setups.

Agree completely. And I was not insinuating that flat ride or street comfort is the only way. Apologies if I came off that way. I was after the same thing that OP was after — dual purpose that is tolerable on the street. Everything I found out was my own tinkering after spending 10s of thousands of dollars on set ups that shops have recommended.

The conclusion I finally settled on was my optimum spring rate combo — swap the fronts when necessary as the situation requires.

And I can’t stress enough that my opinion is based on street performance/comfort — not track use. I am aware that track use is more about “means to an end” and every set up is different depending on kinematic, tires, aero while relegating comfort to a lesser priority. Also knowing that everyone’s solution will be specific and tailor made to their goals — given that the’re trying to achieve ultimate times.

And just as a disclaimer, my set up is absolutely unique. I wanted to run a GT4 splitter with air cups to help me daily drive it. I also wanted a concave/big-lip wheel without stretched tires. This led me down a path that required solutions to problems most people won’t have.

But I think my initial goal is what many a people who “lower” their car wants — good looks without a harsh ride on the street. Most all the advice enthusiasts and shops give is based on the baseline of track performance.

[jfritz27]

Thanks for all the responses everyone... I knew going in that the 2WNR setup with those rates was clearly biased towards track. It's not that it's intolerable on street.

Assuming I don't want to be constantly swapping springs (which I don't), the issue is I run a 5" front spring to maximize front tire width at the track, so going to something <800 but keeping 5" length supposedly runs risk of coil bind at the track (so I've read/heard).

M3SQRD, to your points about the the compression advantages of a remote setup (and this is perhaps just a basic suspension theory question), the ability of the damper system to provide compliance and comfort in compression (to "soak up the bumps") at some level will be limited by the spring rate, correct? Each click of compression can be thought of as having it's own "rate", no? So with a spring rate of 800, and the damper set to full soft in compression let's say, is the valving itself contributing to any resistance of the piston moving ABOVE that imposed by the spring itself, when encountering a bump in the road? Because if not, and if that is true for both a remote and non-remote system set at full soft, then the damper wouldn't make a difference if the spring rate is high enough? I am ignoring the factor of adjustable gas pressure, which I know is relevant as you discussed. And I guess we should also say for sake of argument there is no preload.

I guess I'm basically asking how the resistance to compression imposed by the damper and that imposed by the spring interact with (or add to) one another to yield the effective compliance and piston travel to soak up bumps, and whether there is a point depending on setup (eg. high spring rates) where the compressive resistance of the spring is always higher (and therefore solely dictates the behavior) until compression on the damper is increased to a point where it surpasses the spring and then the damper begins to contribute to the rate of piston travel. Hopefully I'm stating that in a non-confusing way.

[jfritz27]

Originally Posted by b_w.

I moved to the 2wr from 2wnr over the winter. My understanding is the ability to adjust canister pressure is the biggest advantage for street ability vs nr. Will see when it leaves the garage next month.

Nice -- you kept spring rates the same? That will be a nice controlled experiment, please share how it feels once you get enough seat time

[jfritz27]

Also regarding flat ride, my understanding is that principally relates to the minimization of oscillations. Compliance though is kind of different, right?

In other words, you could have a flat ride that feels stiff and a flat ride that feels soft (proportionally higher spring rates in the former scenario, but maintaining the same front:rear ratio with softer springs in the latter)

[M3SQRD]

jfritz27

My initial response was assuming you’d keep the same spring rates and track performance. However, changing rates without changing dampers is another option, if street ride quality is weighted equally as track performance.

Your current spring rates are well into the dedicated track rates range and trying to get the most out of the car on track, not the street. You could easily improve your street ride quality by reducing spring rates to a more dual-purpose setup which can be biased more for street or track use. 500/850 (divorced rear; 850 was available but haven’t checked recently) is a setup close to the center of a dual-purpose setup. 400/800 or 400/700 (both divorced rear) are more street biased setups but still have respectable track performance. It’ll perform very differently from your current 800/700 (rear c/o) especially the rear. IIRC, the rear damper MR is 0.82 so your wheel rate is 082^2*700 = 471 lbf/in whereas the divorced rear spring wheel rate is 0.57^2*800 = 260 lbf/in - 461 vs. 260 is a large drop, 38% reduction in stiffness. Front rates can be directly compared so 800 vs. 400 and 800 vs. 500 are a 50% and 38%, respectively, reduction in stiffness. Improvement in ride quality will feel much larger than 38% or 50%. Start here and see how you like the changes before committing to a switch to a 2/3WR setup.

However, reducing the rates and switching from a 2WNR to a 2/3WR will result in a very noticeable additional increase in ride quality. I was running 500/800 rates on my 2WNR setup when I converted to a 2WR 500/800 setup with 150 psi res pressure. Immediately noticed an improvement in all areas. I then reduced res pressure to 100 psi and felt an even larger improvement in ride quality. The 500/800 rates now felt really soft. Switched to 600/900 rates and it still felt better on the road than 500/800 on 2WNRs.


So I’d recommend you try softer dual-purpose rates on your 2WNRs and see how you like the street and track performance and ride quality trade offs. Then decide if you want to switch to a 2/3WR damper setup and the spring rates you prefer to run on the street and track.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jfritz27

Also regarding flat ride, my understanding is that principally relates to the minimization of oscillations. Compliance though is kind of different, right?

In other words, you could have a flat ride that feels stiff and a flat ride that feels soft (proportionally higher spring rates in the former scenario, but maintaining the same front:rear ratio with softer springs in the latter)

Flat ride sets the rear frequency higher than the front frequency so the rear oscillations “catch up” to the front. For example, if the front frequency, based on corner weight/mass and wheel spring rate

f = 1/(2*pi)*sqrt(k/m)

is 2.0 Hz then you’d set the rear frequency to 2.25 Hz. By doing this, it makes the front and rear feel like they are starting to move together and eventually stop together, hence the flat ride name. It’s not based on damping, it’s based on undamped frequency. Does not directly increase or decrease the number of oscillations. Absolutely, you can have stiff and soft flat-ride setups. Technically speaking, the delta frequencies you select are ideal for a single bump, if you encounter multiple bumps of different sizes and spacing, you can change the phase relationship between the rear and front oscillations.

[jfritz27]

Originally Posted by M3SQRD

jfritz27

My initial response was assuming you’d keep the same spring rates and track performance. However, changing rates without changing dampers is another option, if street ride quality is weighted equally as track performance.

Your current spring rates are well into the dedicated track rates range and trying to get the most out of the car on track, not the street. You could easily improve your street ride quality by reducing spring rates to a more dual-purpose setup which can be biased more for street or track use. 500/850 (divorced rear; 850 was available but haven’t checked recently) is a setup close to the center of a dual-purpose setup. 400/800 or 400/700 (both divorced rear) are more street biased setups but still have respectable track performance. It’ll perform very differently from your current 800/700 (rear c/o) especially the rear. IIRC, the rear damper MR is 0.82 so your wheel rate is 082^2*700 = 471 lbf/in whereas the divorced rear spring wheel rate is 0.57^2*800 = 260 lbf/in - 461 vs. 260 is a large drop, 38% reduction in stiffness. Front rates can be directly compared so 800 vs. 400 and 800 vs. 500 are a 50% and 38%, respectively, reduction in stiffness. Improvement in ride quality will feel much larger than 38% or 50%. Start here and see how you like the changes before committing to a switch to a 2/3WR setup.

However, reducing the rates and switching from a 2WNR to a 2/3WR will result in a very noticeable additional increase in ride quality. I was running 500/800 rates on my 2WNR setup when I converted to a 2WR 500/800 setup with 150 psi res pressure. Immediately noticed an improvement in all areas. I then reduced res pressure to 100 psi and felt an even larger improvement in ride quality. The 500/800 rates now felt really soft. Switched to 600/900 rates and it still felt better on the road than 500/800 on 2WNRs.


So I’d recommend you try softer dual-purpose rates on your 2WNRs and see how you like the street and track performance and ride quality trade offs. Then decide if you want to switch to a 2/3WR damper setup and the spring rates you prefer to run on the street and track.

Thanks.... switching springs would clearly be the easiest/cheapest route, but like I said, if I wish to keep a 5" front spring for tire clearance purposes, the prevailing wisdom (including that of BW) seems to say that I'm kind of stuck at around an 800 front rate (some I believe have challenged that down to around 700 or so, but I don't believe more than that).

Your comments about going from 2WNR to 2WR with a low gas pressure are making my wallet sweat... damn you

[RugbyBro]

+1 on going remote. 3W has more adjustability than 2W so it can objectively give you a better ride, but is the cost/benefit worth it over the 2W? For your use(which is the same as mine) I would lean no. Plus I think there is value in keeping things simple.

2W with 700/600 (rear TC) at 150psi is pretty bearable. You can pressure up or down for a little more control over the gas spring if you need more compliance on the street or more support on track.

[Beyond_Ill]

Originally Posted by x.shell

The 3-way was better in every metric than the 2-way for comfort and street driving.

BUT…

and this is a big “but”… it’s not worth it.

The 3-way come with a whole host of other issues that make it a pain in the ass. The biggest pita is installation. The routing of the remote canisters in itself requires some imagination and planning. Do not forego the quick release connectors for the front AND rear, no matter what anyone says. And you also have to have your own solution for Nitrogen. It’s true that you can have a shop help you with all this. But it’s gonna end up costing you an arm/leg. I did a ton of research and decided that I needed to have all the tools and nitrogen myself — and I’m glad I did it. Basically, if you’re trying to save money here and there, don’t go the 3-way route. Be prepared to spend money.

It’s true that I’m back on the 2-way. But not because I wanted to. The 3-ways developed a squeak that was annoying. It turns out that JRZ had an issue with the bearing seals in the front dampers and they had a recall kit to fix it. So I had to take it out and send it in for servicing. When this happened, I was so glad I held on to my 2-ways. I was able to put them back in with ease because all the parts are plug and play. Since getting the 3-ways back, I have been meaning to install them again — I just haven’t had time.

In terms of stiffness, clicking the damper setting to full soft won’t make your street driving experience comfortable. You have to adjust spring rates.

What I discovered was that I can change the front springs to get my desired [...]

Is this same complexity with nitrogen and installation shared with an integrated reservoir coilover like the KW CS 3way?

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jfritz27

Thanks for all the responses everyone... I knew going in that the 2WNR setup with those rates was clearly biased towards track. It's not that it's intolerable on street.

Assuming I don't want to be constantly swapping springs (which I don't), the issue is I run a 5" front spring to maximize front tire width at the track, so going to something <800 but keeping 5" length supposedly runs risk of coil bind at the track (so I've read/heard).

M3SQRD, to your points about the the compression advantages of a remote setup (and this is perhaps just a basic suspension theory question), the ability of the damper system to provide compliance and comfort in compression (to "soak up the bumps") at some level will be limited by the spring rate, correct? Each click of compression can be thought of as having it's own "rate", no? So with a spring rate of 800, and the damper set to full soft in compression let's say, is the valving itself contributing to any resistance of the piston moving ABOVE that imposed by the spring itself, when encountering a bump in the road? Because if not, and if that is true for both a remote and non-remote system set at full soft, then the damper wouldn't make a difference if the spring rate is high enough? I am ignoring the factor of adjustable gas pressure, which I know is relevant as you discussed. And I guess we should also say for sake of argument there is no preload.

I guess I'm basically asking how the resistance to compression imposed by the damper and that imposed by the spring interact with (or add to) one another to yield the effective compliance and piston travel to soak up bumps, and whether there is a point depending on setup (eg. high spring rates) where the compressive resistance of the spring is always higher (and therefore solely dictates the behavior) until compression on the damper is increased to a point where it surpasses the spring and then the damper begins to contribute to the rate of piston travel. Hopefully I'm stating that in a non-confusing way.

Spring rate and damping determine the peak damped response but the reservoir pressure helps support weight in parallel to the main spring (can help run softer springs on a car with aero/downforce).

I guess the easiest way to describe the difference between a non-remote and remote damper is the remote damper is “smoother” than a non-remote damper. Although the volume of the remote reservoir is small, it still provides a volume for the hydraulic fluid to fill as the main piston moves into the damper. The gas separating piston and gas charge in the reservoir also accommodate the change in fluid flow/volume just like the internal gas chamber in the non-remote damper. A non-remote damper has three pressure regions - rebound chamber above main piston valve stack, compression chamber below main valve stack and the internal gas pressure chamber at the bottom of the damper whereas a remote reservoir has four gas pressure zones - rebound chamber above the main piston valve, compression chamber below the main valve stack, remote compression valve pressure, and the reservoir internal gas pressure chamber. Damping force is related to differential pressure in a fluid so even though a 2WNR and 2WR dampers both independently adjust rebound and compression, the damping forces are generated differently.

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by Beyond_Ill

Is this same complexity with nitrogen and installation shared with an integrated reservoir coilover like the KW CS 3way?

KW CS are a twin-tube damper which requires a low gas pressure which is not adjustable. External reservoir is fixed to the damper body so you do not have to worry about routing reservoirs.

[jfritz27]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

+1 on going remote. 3W has more adjustability than 2W so it can objectively give you a better ride, but is the cost/benefit worth it over the 2W? For your use(which is the same as mine) I would lean no. Plus I think there is value in keeping things simple.

2W with 700/600 (rear TC) at 150psi is pretty bearable. You can pressure up or down for a little more control over the gas spring if you need more compliance on the street or more support on track.

Et tu, Brute?! Yeah, I hear on you on 2w vs 3w, but if I do this, it's going to be the last goddam time, and given how much I'd already be dumping in, I figure I might as well go all-in.

I forget, you're running a 5" in front and no issues with a 700 lb spring?

Looks like I might be begging BW for a little discount come this Black Friday....

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jfritz27

Thanks.... switching springs would clearly be the easiest/cheapest route, but like I said, if I wish to keep a 5" front spring for tire clearance purposes, the prevailing wisdom (including that of BW) seems to say that I'm kind of stuck at around an 800 front rate (some I believe have challenged that down to around 700 or so, but I don't believe more than that).

Your comments about going from 2WNR to 2WR with a low gas pressure are making my wallet sweat... damn you

I was typing my response when you mentioned wanting to run a 5” main spring

If that’s one of your requirements then going down on the front rate isn’t really possible. 700 lbf/in would be cutting it really close…I just looked up the spring travel of a 5” 800 lbf/in vs. 5” 700 lbf/in. The 700 has more travel (2.937”), albeit small, than the 800 (2.889”) so the concern is coil bind, not piston travel? Is the 5” spring totally unloaded at full droop? I’m assuming no helper to maximize tire width? Do you run a bump stop with a 5” main spring? Trying to understand how much piston travel is used up when going from full droop to fully loaded. Assuming 50-50 weight distribution and 3800 lbf weight, that puts a static load of 950 lbf per corner so static deflection is 950/700 = 1.36”. This leaves 1.57” of travel. Fd = 700*1.57 = 1099 lbf. Need to do more math and estimation to see what lateral accel is needed to reach 1099 lbf…

[M3SQRD]

Originally Posted by jfritz27

Et tu, Brute?! Yeah, I hear on you on 2w vs 3w, but if I do this, it's going to be the last goddam time, and given how much I'd already be dumping in, I figure I might as well go all-in.

I forget, you're running a 5" in front and no issues with a 700 lb spring?

Looks like I might be begging BW for a little discount come this Black Friday....

I agree 10000%!!! It’s always cheaper in the long run to spend more upfront rather than spending a little more each time as you improve/outgrow your current setup. Buying once, sometimes twice until you learn (we’ve all been there), is to live by. It’s a good thing to throw out when discussing upgrades with the spouse/SO!

If you can adjust 2W dampers for different tracks and/or changing track conditions, you’ll learn how to properly adjust 3W dampers with time. If you’re working with BW, they can provide you with a solid generic baseline setup that will work well anywhere or help find a more specific track setup problem based on your input/description.