Koni Sport dampers and Evolution driving school..

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
New dampers, and camber plates

Recently (last Thursday!) I got Koni Yellows and camber plates installed onto my car. The camber plates are from Maximum Motorsports. I would have installed Vorshlag plates but they simply couldn't get them built in time. The Vorshlag plates are still on order and it sounds like they'll have them finished relatively soon, so I may change over to them or, alternatively, keep them in case I go with coilovers. Worst case is that I sell them to someone who wants them.

Camber is dialed to -1.8 degrees, toe is zero, and caster is 7 degrees.

If you recall, I've been quite pleased with the stock suspension, but knew (after some experience) that I did indeed need camber plates. But the main thing I was unhappy about with the stock suspension was the harshness of the ride. It wasn't unbearable or anything, but it seemed harsher than it needed to be given the amount of suspension travel available.

For those who haven't seen my past messages here, my original plan was to go with coilovers. However, one of my requirements is to maintain the stock ride height (or darned close to it -- no more than a quarter inch drop up front, and no more than a half inch drop in the rear) because it's a daily driver and because the front roll center drops through the floor when you lower the car and requires that much more spring just to maintain the same amount of roll you had before, and off-the-shelf coilovers simply wouldn't have worked for me (well, except perhaps for the JRI coilovers that Maximum Motorsports offers, but I only found out about those very recently) because they all drop the car by about an inch at a minimum. Ground Control said they could make coilovers to my exact specifications and do it in time for my shop to install them before the Evolution driving school event that I just came from today. They failed to come through.

Well, i wasn't about to go to the Evolution driving school without camber plates, and if I'm going to install camber plates then I'm going to install something better than the stock dampers. Since I was already happy with the general behavior of the stock suspension (in terms of its controllability and balance), and thus wanted springs that maintained that balance, Koni Sport dampers seemed the logical choice because they are readily available, highly regarded, and I would then be able to keep my stock springs (I had computed front and rear rates that, in conjunction with the stock sway bars, should retain the handling characteristics at stock ride height that I already have, and that's what I would have gone with for coilovers, but that option didn't pan out).

That may have worked out for the best, as now I'm changing only one variable at a time (really, two, as I installed camber plates as well). This change allows me to see what better dampers do to the ride and the handling without complicating the question with spring rate changes.


As part of the process, I had my new dampers sent to a place to get them dynoed. I did this for two reasons. The first is that I wanted to be able to set the damping to equal amounts left and right. The second is that I wanted to be able to set the percentage of critical damping. Both require that the dampers be measured on a dyno.

The initial plots I got back are of one in the front and one in the rear. I'm presuming they did dyno all dampers, as that was my instruction to the shop that ordered them and sent them. If not, then I'd need to remove them and have them dynoed again for that purpose, and that's something I might not bother doing. I haven't noticed any side to side difference in damping, but I'm not really sure that's something I could notice even if it existed.

Once I got the dyno plots, I set the rebound to as close to 65% critical as I could for the low speed range (1 to 4 inches/second). For the front, that meant 1/4 of a turn above full soft, and for the rear, that meant 3/4 of a turn above full soft. Then it was off to Evolution driving school.

On the trip there (and back), the value of these dampers became apparent. The ride is substantially improved. The stock dampers have a "rubbery" characteristic that is difficult to explain but is rather unpleasant. That characteristic is completely gone. At 65% critical, the damping over typical SF Bay Area freeway bumps and street irregularities is vastly improved. While you can still feel some of the larger irregularities, it's no longer jarring in the way it used to be. You can feel that the bumps are damped smoothly. It adds a very pleasant characteristic to the ride that wasn't there before.


The Evolution Driving School, Redux

This was the second time I'd been to the Evolution driving school. The first time was on a bone-stock suspension. This time, I was equipped with camber plates and Koni Sport dampers.

The car feels nice and responsive. Frankly, that wasn't a complaint with the stock suspension, so I'm not sure there's a huge difference here. But it certainly didn't disappoint in that regard. It does handle the slaloms rather nicely. The main difference that I noticed is that the car is now a little more neutral, with a little more oversteer characteristic than before. This is mainly with respect to "steady state" cornering, e.g. in a long sweeper, and is especially noticeable when you start playing with the throttle. Whereas before, lifting the throttle would primarily make the front tuck in, this time, sufficient throttle lift alone will make the rear come out a bit, and there was one time when I had to correct that with steering. This makes the car immensely fun around long sweepers. It's just cool to be able to control the car like this. Since I have the same springs as before, and the dampers don't come into play except in transitions, this effect clearly is the result of the additional negative camber up front. Whereas before I really liked the suspension of my car, I now love it.

The driving school was awesome, primarily due to the instructors. One of them was Shelly Monfort, and she seemed to connect with me better than any previous instructor there had. This made a big difference in terms of what I was doing and how I was doing it, and made for substantial improvements in my approach. My internal limitations are still there, of course, but that's generally true of anyone, and it's always just a question of figuring out how to work around them. But that's essentially what we did, and it paid off nicely.

My primary goal wasn't that, however -- it was to learn the car's behavior at the limits, and especially how it differs from the behavior in stock form. That was accomplished very nicely here, even more than I had hoped. Not only have I learned how the car behaves at the limits, I've learned to control it with some precision, e.g. modulating the throttle around a sweeping turn to make it "dance" around the turn. This works especially well for decreasing radius turns.

All in all, it was a great time.


Tire wear

At -1.8 degrees of camber, the wear rate on the outer edges of the front tires now matches that of the rear with the tires and size. During the last Evolution driving school, the amount of wear I accumulated on the front tires was something like 3 to 4 times the amount I accumulate during a track event with the same camber. With the camber plates installed, the amount of wear on the front dropped to about the same as what I was accumulating in a single track event. This is a major improvement. Total grip hasn't really changed, as I'm still getting about 1.1G as measured by the built-in accelerometer. But these tires are now pretty worn, and I may get somewhat better grip with new rubber.

Needless to say, this is a major improvement.

With the balance being what it is, I'm going to keep it here for now and see how the tires wear in a different setting: the road course. The very outer edges are scrubbed away (or nearly so), but I think there's enough left for one track day. That track day is December 1, at Laguna Seca. I believe I've written about my experience at that track the last time I was there. The upshot is that it's some of the most fun I've had at a track, and I expect it'll be the same again this time.



Future plans

I'll stick with the current setup for at least a year. I may go with coilovers in the end, but I now have much less incentive to do so. Randy Pobst, in his comments about the Mustang GT in Motortrend's comparison between that and the BMW M3 (the Mustang tested looks like the Brembo package version, which should have the same dampers as the track package version I have), seemed to think the main shortcoming of the Mustang was in the damping. The Konis seem to fix that, and the camber plates take care of the tire wear issue. It may be that there are additional major improvements to be had, but I'm skeptical of that.

Regardless, the only reason I'm in this is for fun, and that has definitely been improved with these changes. Would coilovers bring even greater enjoyment? Perhaps. But then, perhaps not. Only time and experience will tell, and this setup needs and deserves time to really show what it can do in that regard. So far, I'm very pleased, and in the end, that's really what it's all about.
 
Last edited:

Mineral_'01

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Posts
183
Reaction score
1
Awesome. Post Koni shock dyno plots immediately!

....
 
Last edited:

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
I'll post what I've got so far, but I really want to post the plots for all 4 corners individually. But here's what I've got so far...

The front:

View attachment Front Dyno Range.pdf


The rear:

View attachment Rear Dyno Range.pdf



I'm also trying to get the raw data that forms the basis of the plots, so I can perform calculations on it, and will definitely post that if/when I get it. The plots are interesting in that there are actually two full compression and rebound curves per setting, not just one, and that suggests to me that they did something like performing measurements with different starting strokes (e.g., first start with compression and end with rebound, then start with rebound and end with compression). The results suggest hysteresis in the dampers.


Oh, one other thing: I'm getting my stock dampers dynoed now that they're off the car. Should be very interesting to see what that looks like.
 

Lucky_13

forum member
Joined
May 4, 2014
Posts
84
Reaction score
0
Great info! The konis don't seem too digressive or have much blow off. How did you go about calculating 65% of critical?
 

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
Great info! The konis don't seem too digressive or have much blow off. How did you go about calculating 65% of critical?

The critical damping amount is defined, for pounds and inches as the units, by the following formula:

CD = 2 * sqrt(SpringRate * SprungCornerWeight / 386.4) / (MotionRatio ^ 2)


For the front, the spring rate is 131 lb/in, the sprung corner weight is 945 lb, and the motion ratio is about 0.97. For the rear, the spring rate is 167 lb/in the sprung corner weight is 747 lb, and in two wheel bump, the motion ratio is 1.

I derived the weights from the weight distribution of 53.7% in the front, a curb weight including the driver of 3875 (I'm about 225 lbs), and unsprung weights of about 95 lbs/side in the front and 150 lbs/side in the rear.

You compute the critical damping value in inches/second and then multiply by 0.65 to get the 65% critical damping value, in lbs/in-sec. Based on that, 65% critical in the front is about 24 lbs/in-sec, while in the rear it's about 23.5. I rounded up to 25 for both as I'm really just attempting to get this in the ballpark. You multiply that value by the in/sec value you're looking at to see where on the dyno plot you need to look to find the closest damping setting. Based on that, 1/4 of a turn from full soft in front gets me very close to 65% critical damping, while 3/4 of a turn in the rear gets me that.
 
Last edited:

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
2
Sooooo the rears have greater damping force? Mislabeled?

Edit- enjoyed you sharing your experience!
 
Last edited:

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
Sooooo the rears have greater damping force? Mislabeled?

Not mislabeled that I know of. There's no way for me to really tell other than getting someone else to dyno these, and that seems wasteful. But I don't feel a substantial difference in the damping between the front and the rear, and I would expect to if I had the settings reversed.


The rears have greater maximum damping force than the fronts, but the initial damping force is greater in the front, which is why I'm having to use less adjustment in the front than the rear.

I'm not that surprised that the rears have greater maximum damping force, seeing how one has to run heavier rear spring rates in order to get the "flat ride" characteristic, and that's how the factory sets up the springs.
 

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
2
I'm not that surprised that the rears have greater maximum damping force, seeing how one has to run heavier rear spring rates in order to get the "flat ride" characteristic, and that's how the factory sets up the springs.

I am very suprised. "Flat-ride" can be altered with bars too.
 

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
I am very suprised. "Flat-ride" can be altered with bars too.

I don't see how, unless you're speaking in jest. :)

"Flat ride" has to do with when the front and rear bump motions settle relative to each other. That's determined primarily by the relative spring rates (more specifically, the relative ride frequencies, front versus rear). The idea is that at whatever speed you're optimizing for, you want the two bump motions to settle at about the same time, so that when you go over a bump, you experience most of the same motion at the same time front and rear, rather than at the front before the rear. When you experience the bumps separately, it causes the chassis to "buck" around the chassis midpoint, so you get a "head toss" kind of motion. "Flat ride" minimizes this motion when a bump is encountered at the design speed.

It's strictly for ride quality, and is something that is generally ignored for strict performance applications.

Now, as it happens, with a front-weighted car, you may want a higher spring rate in the rear anyway because you want to dial out understeer in the front, and a higher spring rate in the rear relative to the front is one way of doing that (a stiffer bar in the rear relative to the front accomplishes the same thing).

I've no idea why Koni's dampers are set the way they are front versus rear in terms of their overall range. It's possible that the dyno plots are reversed. I'll be most annoyed if that's the case. But given that the damping feels about the same front versus rear, I suspect the plots are correct.
 

Mineral_'01

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Posts
183
Reaction score
1
Interesting and thanks for posting. We can definitely confirm the Konis have an excellent limited cross-talk when adjusting from full soft to firm. I still can't quite figure out the two different curves for each adjustment setting. I guess it is like you said, they start with a different stroke (compression and rebound) or maybe it is tested between the middle of the shafts total stroke and then again at the very bottom, simulating an extreme lowered car?

Also, it is interesting that your standard Konis appear to be "stiffer" at full firm (both compression and rebound) than the Ground Control track/school coilovers. This can be seen in Whiskey's old thread with dyno plots here: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98784 Funny, Whiskey and others thought the same thing about the front and rear plots being reversed in that thread.
 
Last edited:

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
654
Reaction score
5
Interesting and thanks for posting. We can definitely confirm the Konis have an excellent limited cross-talk when adjusting from full soft to firm. I still can't quite figure out the two different curves for each adjustment setting. I guess it is like you said, they start with a different stroke (compression and rebound) or maybe it is tested between the middle of the shafts total stroke and then again at the very bottom, simulating an extreme lowered car?

That's possible. I've asked my shop to relay my questions and requests to the company that dynoed the dampers, so I'll hopefully be getting an explanation from them reasonably soon.


Also, it is interesting that your standard Konis appear to be "stiffer" at full firm (both compression and rebound) than the Ground Control track/school coilovers. This can be seen in Whiskey's old thread with dyno plots here: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98784 Funny, Whiskey and others thought the same thing about the front and rear plots being reversed in that thread.

While the Ground Control dampers are manufactured by Koni, they're valved by Ground Control. They're less "general purpose" than the Koni Sport dampers are, so I'm not terribly surprised that the damping range is greater with the Sport dampers than with the Ground Control units.
 

Sam Strano

forum member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Posts
918
Reaction score
3
I haven't been around here a lot in the last couple years due one particular person. But I miss it. And I was talking to Shelly last night after the school and mentioned how things went with the OP.

First, I'm glad you had a good time and learned some stuff. I'm biased as Shelly is my girlfriend, but also my student and I'm the one who trained her to teach (and we discuss things before and after most schools). You'll find few instructors as good.

Secondly hell yes the Koni's are light years beyond OEM dampers. No need to dyno them to know that. But fwiw, I've had Koni curves for years on the S197. And the Ground Control dampers are not production Koni's as was mentioned but some concoction they put together and sometimes the damping can be pretty wacky. And I'm probably a little biased as most every National Championship I've won (and Shelly too) have been on OTS Koni's. They can't do it all in every case but they do 99% of the job for 95% of the people, 99% of the time. Which is why they are my go-to first recommendation for customers of mine who are looking for a proper control damper. I've used OTS to win all but one my Mustang won National Championships... and I've had other dampers since too. Currently my Corvette (what I run now) is on them, and I've tried 3 others in between as well. Including some very high dollar ones.
 

Mineral_'01

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Posts
183
Reaction score
1
The critical damping amount is defined, for pounds and inches as the units, by the following formula:

CD = 2 * sqrt(SpringRate * UnsprungCornerWeight / 386.4) / (MotionRatio ^ 2)

Based on that, 65% critical in the front is about 24 lbs/in-sec, while in the rear it's about 23.5.

Can you break down this example at how you arrived at 24 front 23.5 rear? I keep trying to use the formula you posted and the numbers you used, but can't arrive at the same result. (my answers are a lot lower) I think I am doing something wrong with the motion ratio. Thanks!
 
Last edited:

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
2
I don't see how, unless you're speaking in jest. :)

"Flat ride" has to do with when the front and rear bump motions settle relative to each other. That's determined primarily by the relative spring rates (more specifically, the relative ride frequencies, front versus rear). The idea is that at whatever speed you're optimizing for, you want the two bump motions to settle at about the same time, so that when you go over a bump, you experience most of the same motion at the same time front and rear, rather than at the front before the rear. When you experience the bumps separately, it causes the chassis to "buck" around the chassis midpoint, so you get a "head toss" kind of motion. "Flat ride" minimizes this motion when a bump is encountered at the design speed.

It's strictly for ride quality, and is something that is generally ignored for strict performance applications.

Now, as it happens, with a front-weighted car, you may want a higher spring rate in the rear anyway because you want to dial out understeer in the front, and a higher spring rate in the rear relative to the front is one way of doing that (a stiffer bar in the rear relative to the front accomplishes the same thing).

I've no idea why Koni's dampers are set the way they are front versus rear in terms of their overall range. It's possible that the dyno plots are reversed. I'll be most annoyed if that's the case. But given that the damping feels about the same front versus rear, I suspect the plots are correct.

My definition of the "flat ride" is not the same as yours. And I'm guessing your "flat ride" is an official term used as a marketing point with a revision in the S197's suspension in the later models whereas my definition was basically "less body roll in the corners", which is a BS definition of my own choosing.

All I'm saying is the available damping force for the fronts should be MUCH greater than the rears.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
My definition of the "flat ride" is not the same as yours. And I'm guessing your "flat ride" is an official term used as a marketing point with a revision in the S197's suspension in the later models whereas my definition was basically "less body roll in the corners", which is a BS definition of my own choosing.

All I'm saying is the available damping force for the fronts should be MUCH greater than the rears.
"Flat ride" deals with vehicle pitch motion rather than roll. Think side view rotations, i.e. "nose dive" under braking and squat/nose rise during acceleration.

For all you're likely to ever want to know about shocks (and then some) . . . http://books.sae.org/r-381/

About the curves, I'm guessing that the test was a sinusoidal test and you're actually looking at hysteresis loops. See Dixon's book (↑↑↑).

I'll take a look at the Cc (critical damping - C is the usual symbol for damping and the little c is a subscript indicating "critical") equation later but I think there may be some confusion with the parentheses and what the sqrt operation works with. Also, whether you're computing Cc for the sprung or unsprung mass matters.

If it matters any, I've felt that settings considerably higher than +1/4 turn give improved grip even in brisk street driving, at least in a turn sequence that sort of approximates a slalom. I was running substantially beyond +1 at both ends at the last track day of the year this past Sunday, and I'm still on the OE springs, too.


Norm
 
Last edited:

claudermilk

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Posts
1,840
Reaction score
1
Location
SoCal
Can you break down this example at how you arrived at 24 front 23.5 rear? I keep trying to use the formula you posted and the numbers you used, but can't arrive at the same result. (my answers are a lot lower) I think I am doing something wrong with the motion ratio. Thanks!
I played with the formula and the numbers come out right if you plug in the SPRUNG weights KC noted. Perhaps that was what he meant?

Great writeup on your experience. Can we say "we told you so" regarding the dampers and camber plates? ;)

Like Norm, I'm running much more than +1/4 for the track. My notes show I ended up at about +2 front and +1.5 rear last time when the car felt the best (this was in 100* temps with shot tires). I may have to play with running the rears higher just as an experiment; I was going off the general principles of reducing rear stiffness (where I had any control) to reduce oversteer. For the street I'm about +1/4 or so all around to avoid a buckboard ride. I am also running much more camber for track--I'm at -2.75* which puts me close to where the big dogs around here say the S197 likes to be. On the street I'm at OEM specs.
 

Mineral_'01

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Posts
183
Reaction score
1
I played with the formula and the numbers come out right if you plug in the SPRUNG weights KC noted. Perhaps that was what he meant?

Great writeup on your experience. Can we say "we told you so" regarding the dampers and camber plates? ;)

Like Norm, I'm running much more than +1/4 for the track. My notes show I ended up at about +2 front and +1.5 rear last time when the car felt the best (this was in 100* temps with shot tires). I may have to play with running the rears higher just as an experiment; I was going off the general principles of reducing rear stiffness (where I had any control) to reduce oversteer. For the street I'm about +1/4 or so all around to avoid a buckboard ride. I am also running much more camber for track--I'm at -2.75* which puts me close to where the big dogs around here say the S197 likes to be. On the street I'm at OEM specs.

Yep, that was the ticket. Using sprung weight (not unsrung weight) I arrived at 23.988lbs/in sec for the front.
 

Mineral_'01

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Posts
183
Reaction score
1
So using these calculations with my own setup, I arrived at 43.48lbs/in-sec front and 27.11lbs/in-sec rear. That's with 430lbs/in front springs and 225lbs/in rear. Now I am going to look back at Whiskey's GC dyno plots (which should be very close to mine) and figure out approximately where I should set my dampers to achieve 65% critical. Thanks for posting everyone, I have been waiting for this data.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
You guys do realize that any calculated setting is only a starting point . . . It's almost guaranteed that your optimal settings will be different for at least one end of the car


Norm
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top