P5 Puredrive vs Gaz

[ryan-isla]

Good choice Howard. Common sense prevails at last !

[Phil @ P5]

Ab Shocks said:

Herman Toothrot said:

]Anyway you've confused me know as previously you stated the new GAZ kit has shorter shock bodies so can be run lower, whats the point of this if there was more than enough travel anyway and its just US BS that there isn't?

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Monday 29th December 13:27

That isn't quite the whole point that I made ealier.
The Pro series dampers will run lower but I don't recomend that you run to their potential low levels without either stiffening up the spring rates to Ma5da racing levels, or use the trick kit to re-level the arms, not taking either action could cause bump-steer or other handling problems.

I wouldn't run that low....period. Just the effect on changing the roll couple will cause issues, never mind adding in bump steer and then overly stiff springs to try and band aid that.

What may be assumed to work on the track will probably not work on the road......

Edited by Phil @ P5 on Tuesday 30th December 10:20

[Phil @ P5]

Ab Shocks said:

The only reason I would change over to Mk2 top-mounts is cost over replacing old Mk1 kit that was knackered with OEM and I would suspect that Mazda's motives were cost driven rather than improvement, when you look at the two mounts.

The problem is that in the States they have dampers from Japan that probably are a tad on the long side and nobody can do much about lack of travel, so playing about with mounts is their only answer.

Unfortuntely, despite the fact that UK spec dampers give more than enough travel, the Yanks pass all their superior knowlege over the pond on the forums and we fall for it.

I call it USBS syndrome.

I would go and see a specialist who actually understands a bit about suspension before wasting my hard earned on bits of kit that are not needed but unfortunately they are as rare as hens teeth in MX-5 circles, mostly re-sellers looking to make a buck.

Have look at my Website and you will find a UK list of guys who actually understand how to get car to go round corners.

So.....why do you supply poly bump stops for the rear if there's more than enough travel? There's no front bump stops included IIRC.

[Ab Shocks]

Phil @ P5 said:

What may be assumed to work on the track will probably not work on the road......

Edited by Phil @ P5 on Tuesday 30th December 10:20

Blimey....

Yet another sweeping statement with no qualification.

The factors that determine minimum ride height need to be addressed before assuming that track settings will not work on a road car.

1) What spring rates are you using?
2) Usage: Show car, daily driver, road/trackday, pure trackday ?
3) To a degree, Geometry settings.

Qualification
1) Softer springs will generally require more suspension travel so either shorter bodies or revised top-mounts may be required and slamming the car for shows could mean riding the bump-stops in extreme cases. Stiffer springs mean lower ride heights can be achieved. I have gone the shorter body route because I can get Gaz to make whatever I want so its a cost effective option.

2) To a degree usage is linked to springs because the type of ride you require will determine how much body roll you end up with (on standard ARB's) and for the guys looking to run a road/trackday set-up, life is a compromise that you have to accept. Take advice based on proposed usage and give feedback to your geometry shop to help them arrive at the best solution for you.

3) Geometry can be used to overcome some of the problems with running lower but only to a degree, running a tad more toe will help bump steer but has knock on effects. Running more caster helps get a better contct point on the tyre as well but again not the whole picture, etc etc etc.

The rule of thumb for road cars on standard springs is to try and start off with lower front wishbones level with the ground and that equates to 12.75"to 13.00" front and 13.25"to 13.50" rear arch to wheel centre, that is well below standard ride height.

[Ab Shocks]

Phil @ P5 said:

So.....why do you supply poly bump stops for the rear if there's more than enough travel? There's no front bump stops included IIRC.

Hi Phil.. Happy new year
MX-5 car parts generally supply stops and gaiters to their customers on the standard range, so that is none of my business but the Gaz Gold Pro series has to cover show cars to ma5da race series cars and are offered as standard with Powerflex progressive stops to cover the range of usage.

Edited by Ab Shocks on Tuesday 30th December 11:57

[Phil @ P5]

I did write 'assume' to work on track....You mentioned USBS and how many times do we see people think the lower and stiffer the better? I'm saying that isn't going to work on the road.

I'm not sure we share the same ethos. I'm quite happy to put x limit on stiffening the springs and y limit on lowering it, before performance and handling actually get worse. I don't want to be in the situation that Mr Customer blames my kit for his poor handling when he's gone beyond the limits. I don't even want to try and solve the issues in going lower as you'll end up with stiffer springs et al as baid aids to try and stop problems it creates (bump steer, more weight transfer, reduced travel).

Phil

Edited by Phil @ P5 on Tuesday 30th December 13:30

[Ab Shocks]

Phil @ P5 said:

I did write 'assume' to work on track....You mentioned USBS and how many times do we see people think the lower and stiffer the better? I'm saying that isn't going to work on the road.

I'm not sure we share the same ethos. I'm quite happy to put x limit on stiffening the springs and y limit on lowering it, before performance and handling actually get worse. I don't want to be in the situation that Mr Customer blames my kit for his poor handling when he's gone beyond the limits. I don't even want to try and solve the issues in going lower as you'll end up with stiffer springs et al as baid aids to try and stop problems it creates (bump steer, more weight transfer, reduced travel).

Phil

Edited by Phil @ P5 on Tuesday 30th December 13:30

I'm not sure our ethos differs that much because customer needs rule but maybe we come to the same conclusions from different directions

I started on track needs with the Pro series kits with high tensile material, less weight, better anodising protection,ride height adaptability, better smoother progression from bump to rebound with new banded pistons, 2.25" spring adapters to offer more spring options, rear facing adjusters for better protection, racing oil for less cavitation and less but more pronounced adjustments.

When you look at the list is becomes apparent that most of the improvements carry over to road usage, subject to correct parts being specified and fitted and geometry suiting driving style. This is why I'm limiting supplies to racing teams and WIM in the first instance but I will expand the network North later on.

[Avoneer]

Where's Harry Hill when you need him ;-)

Good reading though for all us punters and potential/current customers.

Pat...

[StressedDave]

Ab Shocks said:

I started on track needs with the Pro series kits with high tensile material, less weight, better anodising protection,ride height adaptability, better smoother progression from bump to rebound with new banded pistons, 2.25" spring adapters to offer more spring options, rear facing adjusters for better protection, racing oil for less cavitation and less but more pronounced adjustments.

All of these things are worthwhile improvements, although for the life of me I can't imagine why you'd ever have anything other than a banded piston in the first place, and until I sectioned a GAZ unit a while back, I hadn't seen any manufacturer who'd done the same, not even an OE maker who might want to save a penny or two. The issue I have with a 'generic' (if that's not too insulting a term) damper which purports to cope with every spring rate in the book is that they can't - not really because you have to compromise somewhere, particularly around the knee point between low speed damping (which controls the handling during transients) and high speed damping (which controls the ride aspect over the large bumps). The only dampers I've seen which can successfully do that over a range of rates are four-way adjustable so you have absolute control over the shape of the damper curve. The other option is of course to reshim and change the bleed drillings for every application.

Ab Shocks said:

When you look at the list is becomes apparent that most of the improvements carry over to road usage, subject to correct parts being specified and fitted and geometry suiting driving style. This is why I'm limiting supplies to racing teams and WIM in the first instance but I will expand the network North later on.

Geometry, and Tony does indeed do fantastic work, can only get you so far. If you've lowered (or indeed raised for that full MX-5 off-roader effect) the car significantly you'll have changed roll centre heights, camber and caster changes in bump and roll and potentially introduced bump steer. None of those can be taken away with a geometry adjustment - your only option is to limit suspension travel with ever stiffer springs, which wreck the ride by bringing the heave frequency closer to the wheel hop frequency and wreck handling by limiting traction on anything but the smoothest roads.

I've spent more time softening off clients spring rates and setting dampers to suit than I ever have going the other way. The problem is that most customers don't understand handling and think that if it's stiff, it must be good, 'cos it feels like a racing car.

[ryan-isla]

You obviously know about dampers and suspension set ups, if so, do you know a man called David Lyon ? He is definately one of the best in the business. Probably in the top 10 in the country (maybe top 5). If im wrong, who is ? We are talking about all forms of motor sport from oval racing to gravel rallying. Not just sprinting.

[kevham]

The good thing about this debate is that there is a clear choice for potential customers.

The bad thing is that it is difficult for customers to make the choice because it is a very technical area and there are a lot of things to consider. I'm sure both approaches have their merits but I'm not entirely clear which approach would be best suited to the original poster.

As Ab Shocks said, a track/road setup is always a big compromise and I'm not sure that most customers will really understand that.

I'll throw another question in - how will tyre choice influence the suspension setup? I assume the GPP setup is being developed with the Hankook K110 (a normal road tyre) in mind as that is the control tyre for the 2009 Ma5da race series? What spec would you recommend for track use with higher grip track-oriented tyres (such as Kumho V70)?

I think I'll buy a suspension book with my christmas vouchers!

[wheels-inmotion]

Blimey this threads moved on somewhat!!

All i can say is the Geometric testing i did on cars with the Gaz Gold Pro offered me a much more stable chassis, i found the chassis tendency's was superb providing the cars not slammed to the ground.

I think the Gaz Gold Pro series will be very successful next year, evermore so once the ma5da series shows how well they perform, and it's for this reason i'm very keen to be part of this evolution.

I'm not knocking the Puredrive kits, there's been endless happy customers using them but.... things move on.

[magic torch]

This really has come round full circle, but now I'm confused by it all.

I know how I'd like my car set-up, who do I talk to?

[ryan-isla]

I run 888's on my e30 in the http://www.pbmwc.co.uk/
I also use this on the road sometimes and have no issues. In my opinion you can't ignore the support, commitment and pedigree from a suspension company who are obviously committed to providing ongoing improvements and feedback to it's customers. BTW i highly recommend Nitron's too !

[ryan-isla]

magic torch said:

This really has come round full circle, but now I'm confused by it all.

I know how I'd like my car set-up, who do I talk to?

http://www.absolutelyshocks.com/

Edited by ryan-isla on Tuesday 30th December 22:04

Edited by ryan-isla on Wednesday 31st December 09:09

[wheels-inmotion]

kevham said:

The good thing about this debate is that there is a clear choice for potential customers.

The bad thing is that it is difficult for customers to make the choice because it is a very technical area and there are a lot of things to consider. I'm sure both approaches have their merits but I'm not entirely clear which approach would be best suited to the original poster.

As Ab Shocks said, a track/road setup is always a big compromise and I'm not sure that most customers will really understand that.

I'll throw another question in - how will tyre choice influence the suspension setup? I assume the GPP setup is being developed with the Hankook K110 (a normal road tyre) in mind as that is the control tyre for the 2009 Ma5da race series? What spec would you recommend for track use with higher grip track-oriented tyres (such as Kumho V70)?

I think I'll buy a suspension book with my christmas vouchers!

There isn't any spec available, the tyre grip/ saturation limits would need to be found then used as a template to be used by the driver for fine-tuning, the variables are endless so each and every car should be perceived as unique.

[Ab Shocks]

ryan-isla said:

You obviously know about dampers and suspension set ups, if so, do you know a man called David Lyon ? He is definately one of the best in the business. Probably in the top 10 in the country (maybe top 5). If im wrong, who is ? We are talking about all forms of motor sport from oval racing to gravel rallying. Not just sprinting.

You must be an ex Leda customer to know Dave Lyon and for those that don't know, he is now the motorsport guru at Gaz and is God as far as I'm concerned.

[maz8062]

kevham said:

The good thing about this debate is that there is a clear choice for potential customers.

The bad thing is that it is difficult for customers to make the choice because it is a very technical area and there are a lot of things to consider. I'm sure both approaches have their merits but I'm not entirely clear which approach would be best suited to the original poster.

As Ab Shocks said, a track/road setup is always a big compromise and I'm not sure that most customers will really understand that.

I'll throw another question in - how will tyre choice influence the suspension setup? I assume the GPP setup is being developed with the Hankook K110 (a normal road tyre) in mind as that is the control tyre for the 2009 Ma5da race series? What spec would you recommend for track use with higher grip track-oriented tyres (such as Kumho V70)?

I think I'll buy a suspension book with my christmas vouchers!

This is not about re-inventing the wheel IMHO - In commerce, if one were spending £500 - £600 on any product prudence should dictate that a thorough investigation of all the options are carried out before purchase. For £600 the choices are;

P5
Gaz
Tein
Koni
KYB AGX

I know what I would buy if it were my money.

[Ab Shocks]

wheels-inmotion said:

There isn't any spec available, the tyre grip/ saturation limits would need to be found then used as a template to be used by the driver for fine-tuning, the variables are endless so each and every car should be perceived as unique.

Whilst Tony is right on MX-5 cars we do run semi slick and full slicks on TVR cars which run at similar weights and run similar geo on a twin wishbone set-up so subject to heat testing we could help.

I fully intend to attend some of the MX-5 trackdays this year and will bring my tyre probe along.

[Ab Shocks]

StressedDave said:

All of these things are worthwhile improvements, although for the life of me I can't imagine why you'd ever have anything other than a banded piston in the first place

In that case you may be surprised to learn that Spax, Avo and Protech still use the old pistons and rings.

StressedDave said:

Geometry, and Tony does indeed do fantastic work, can only get you so far. If you've lowered (or indeed raised for that full MX-5 off-roader effect) the car significantly you'll have changed roll centre heights, camber and caster changes in bump and roll and potentially introduced bump steer. None of those can be taken away with a geometry adjustment - your only option is to limit suspension travel with ever stiffer springs, which wreck the ride by bringing the heave frequency closer to the wheel hop frequency and wreck handling by limiting traction on anything but the smoothest roads.

I think that Tony realises that ride height plays a major part in setting up geometry and that he would give input and suggestions to the customer before attempting to set up a car that could potentially handle badly.