Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3695975)

You crack me up, I guess all spring then are created equal and there no difference between Swifts or any other spring. I will agree that all springs are equal as far the rating of 10k or 8k or whatever, however I must be all wet in thinking that springs would respond differently based on the materials they are made of or the thickness of the spring or how tightly the sping was spun. :stirthepot:

Oh and I have a very sensitive butt!:icon23:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3695978)

:icon23::icon23::icon23::icon23::icon23:

:rofl2:

You do have a point. Springs may be rated the same. But due to differences in alloy, coil spacing, coil diameter, spring diameter, wire diameter. May rebound differently. They will take the same amount of weight to compress. But to rebound could be different.

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3695975)

You crack me up, I guess all spring then are created equal and there no difference between Swifts or any other spring. I will agree that all springs are equal as far the rating of 10k or 8k or whatever, however I must be all wet in thinking that springs would respond differently based on the materials they are made of or the thickness of the spring or how tightly the sping was spun. :stirthepot:

Oh and I have a very sensitive butt!:icon23:

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3695983)

Are you guessing or do you know forsure these factors are different? All of those factors come into play to create the spring rate. So more times than not the dimensions are extremely close for any given diameter and length per rate measured. In the case where materials are different, the force acting upon it should be linear in both rebound and compression, if not, this goes back to what i said about damaged. Noticing a difference between a 10kg x 5 inch eibach or swift would mean one or the other does not truly hold its rate in linear fashion. There have been no recent test that show swift springs falling short of its rates. i doubt the rates and lengths are actually the same if you are saying you've determined a noticeable difference with these absolute back to back test. In any case, why would you even make this change? Unless you actually damaged your springs or dampers.

Originally Posted by MaysEffect (Post 3696124)

I was asking for clarification on the situation because you are the one making the claim about variations between companies claiming the same properties. There are too many variables in a suspension system that would render your analysis inaccurate. Certainly if the springs you claim are in actuality not the same in the first place.

There is a statement in the article suggest there are industry standards that allow estimated measurement values of 5% accuracy to the claimed rating. While this is true and the case between company and company, you'd still be hard pressed to notice a considerable difference here unless there were considerable design differences between the springs. Most linear springs from swift, hyperco and eibach use very similar design principles and dimensions, with materials and forming being one of the only open variable. Even still not different enough to change to overall behavior of the spring. If it's a linear spring we are talking about, it still needs to behave in such fashion. Now if you are talking about progressive springs, then of course they're will be considerable differences from the base spring ratings companies claim. There is absolutely nothing accurate about ratings for progressive springs, certainly when talking about dual rate springs. The differences can easily be above 200ib/in at 2inches of compression for instance.

With a 1000ib/in linear spring, a 5% variation is only 50ibs. In most cases 1000ibs is already greater than the corner load on most vehicles including the 370z and g37. So you'd need significant load transfer or bump aggravation to get those springs working. Add in damper force and tire compression, you're butt will need to be working at 200% to accurately measure what the spring is doing beyond supporting the weight of the vehicle.

This is also another reason why kg/mm is such a horrible measurement in any form. It allows a variable average of 55*ib/in both ways between ratings. Hyperco, Eibach and even swift don't even claim those exact levels of accuracy on there site in ib/in form. Hyperco make springs in 25ib/in increments as does eibach. So again this goes back to what i said that in reality the two springs you are claiming are not actually the same and can be different over 2kg or so. So is the swift spring actually softer? Sure, but that's by the virtue of it actually having a different rating all together. Not it's difference to compression and rebound behavior.

You and the article are right in saying the springs may not actually have the same rating, but this is not the same thing as saying; for one rating (if accurately measured), two springs behave different enough for you to tell pants to seat. Even in the article they used a scenario when they changed springs with slightly different ratings and couldn't tell the difference.



You saying you could tell the difference with two springs with the SAME rating and noticing a significant difference draws skepticism. Sorry you don't see that. The test goes on to say, the springs were actually tested within 2ib/in of eachother in favor of the lower rated spring when rated only 1/2kg/mm(25ib/in) difference.

I don't know how you are reading my tone, but i haven't said anything with attitude or contempt. I was simply questioning the validity of your claims. Making claims like that suggests someone is lying about there products, and in a thread where people come to get information like this, that can be damaging to the reputation of the company you speak about. Making that claim alone can significantly shift someone's buying choice when the validity of the claim can't even be taken with face value. This is my reasoning for questioning it. I was not at all trying to belittle you, just trying to get an accurate depiction of the situation, so others can draw the right conclusion before changing their opinion. (seriously wasn't trying to rhyme there :icon17:)

I've literally been making the same questions and discussions since I've been here. My very first post almost gave Spooler an aneurysm lol. So sorry if i got under your skin. It's not at all personal

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3696134)

Next time. Include the whole thing. ;)


What it amounts to is. There was a spring that what tagged as a 375#. But was measured 385#. They changed to a 400# spring, but it was measured at 385# later. That why they felt no change.

I'm at the point of :horse: You haven't been around long enough in life to see everything that we have.

Originally Posted by Hotrodz (Post 3696133)

You protest too much! You don't know me and give yourself to much credit. I only have one feeling and you are not even close to hitting it!!!

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 3696134)

Next time. Include the whole thing. ;)

a car had a 375# tagged spring in the rear, the driver felt that the car was loose on corner entry and the Hoosier tire temperatures supported his feel. After stiffing the spring to a 400# tagged spring the driver did not feel any changes. The tire temperatures still supported his feel. After the supposed spring change, the team then began to change shocks, sway-bars, and pan-hard bar heights. At the end of the day, the springs where rated. After viewing the data sheets we found that the 375# tagged spring was actually a 387# and the 400# tagged spring was a 385#. So the actual change in spring rate was not an increase of 25# as was intended but a decrease of 2#. This is why the driver and the tire temps showed no change.

What it amounts to is. There was a spring that what tagged as a 375#. But was measured 385#. They changed to a 400# spring, but it was measured at 385# later. That why they felt no change.

I'm at the point of :horse: You haven't been around long enough in life to see everything that we have.