This question is related to R56 Hatchback, non convert cars.

Being around here... you cant help but see that many of the MINI enthusiasts are lowering their R56's.
That can be by using struts/shocks with lowered perches, springs that lower the car.... or by using coilovers.


Some sincere questions that I hope will open a conversation and learning experience for me and for others on the forum here.

I've looked all over the web and on the forums here and I'm missing this information... which is the reason to ask the very vendors that are selling some of this equipment.

First 2 pair of questions. All questions are related to cars resting their full weight on the tires.... not suspended on jacks/lift.

1a) What is the factory, STOCK, R56-MCS (non-JCW/GP) Front-Strut TRAVEL from fully extended to fully compressed?
1b) What is the factory, STOCK, R56-MCS (non-JCW/GP) Rear-Shock TRAVEL from fully extended to fully compressed?

Using the R56 specific Koni yellows, for example, are one of the popular replacement strut/shock setups for our R56 cars.
I believe that these R56 specific 'Koni Yellows' lower the car slightly even with stock springs that came with the same car?
They are compression adjustable but have fixed ride height for a given spring (no user adjustment)

2a) What is the KONI 'Yellow", R56 Front-Strut TRAVEL from fully extended to fully compressed with stock R56-MCS springs (non-JCW/GP springs)?
2b) What is the KONI 'Yellow", R56 Rear-Shock TRAVEL from fully extended to fully compressed with stock R56-MCS springs (non-JCW/GP springs)?.

 

Lowered but not loosing travel... Is this Possible?

3a) Is there any Strut/Shock combo or Coil-over-set that lowers a R56-MCS (non JCW/GP) without sacrificing suspension travel?

3b) If there is none that lower without sacraficing travel... which lowered setup sacrifices the LEAST travel?

I also understand that there other factors like droop/squat/dynamic-extension etc... that can affect the suspension... but for this conversation... I'd like to keep it simple and focus on static-state Travel of the shocks/struts.




.

 

JCW springs (10mm drop) or AST springs/Godspeed/megans springs that have a mild drop keeps it closest to the same travel. Unless you put coilovers on and run them to stock height? I can talk to KONI and get the specs on the stock and compression they have worked with a lot of the science behind it with MINI.

 

Thank you for that fast reply...

Though any spring that lowers the car with a given shock/strut will also DECREASE the TRAVEL by that same amount lowered.
In this case... The JCW springs at 10mm lowering will also diminish the travel of the strut/shock by the same 10mm.

I'm really interested in finding out the answers to the first post in this thread.... and I think it will be beneficial information to others on this forum too....

I'm glad we have such great direct support on this forum from vendors like we do... what an asset !




.

 

Its decreases but is the least amount of decrease. Other then a sport spring that runs stock height, thats not really a thing for MINIs, but i know other Brand that make them for other Makes.

Yep, glad to help. I get questions like this and other engineering stuff all the time.

 

Also... if any of our R56 MINI owners and enthusiasts have input on these questions (first and second post in this thread).... that would be AWESOME !!




.

 

Cool ... Thank you sincerely !
Do you have or can you find the info for questions 1 and 2 in the first post of this thread?

I am much less interested in the springs than I am in the TRAVEL at this point. Which is why, so far in this conversation the questions are limited to stock R56-MCS strut/shocks and conceivably the most popular aftermarket strut/shock combo... the Koni Yellow for the R56-MCS. The amount lowered by a spring is a given that that is the amount of sacrificed travel when compared to stock. I am certainly NOT discounting spring rates/forces and installed heights effects here... but keeping the scope of this focused on one component of suspension operation... which is really not discussed here or in other forums nor on vendor sites.

I would imagine that a shock/strut combo in the aftermarket might be able to be engineered that would retain the stock travel but lower the car to a certain, reasonable, degree??





.

 

Welcome,

KONI will get back to me and hopefully they can get that info.

 

In my mind, full suspension travel (full extended to full compressed) is determined by the strut rod, not the springs. Springs are more closely related to ride height, with a smaller influence by the strut.

In the Miata world, Koni yellows will lower a Miata by ~1/2 with no other suspension changes because they run with a lower pressure inside the damper. If the same ride height change happens in the R56, maybe it is due to the same reasoning. Not sure if Koni will respond with that explanation or not. I suspect they will respond with ‘our struts are designed to not affect ride height’.

 

Interesting questions...

I have questions about your questions... That is, are you looking for a measure of the stoke length of the front and rear shocks out of the car? I think that is what your are looking for, but wanted to double check before I did anything. I think that I have not yet disposed of the (non JCW) shocks I took out of my R56 Hatch years ago and would be willing measure the stroke length of those if I still have them. I could also get body length and shaft length. I think some of the after market shocks have a different body lengths.

 

Yes, In 'static' measurement... sitting on the bench... talking about measurement of any given shock/strut.... the Travel (extended to compressed) IS related to the travel of the shaft. BUT, as detailed above, with the MINI's weight on the shock/strut, you will have less useable travel of the shock/strut if you lower the car... simply put you start off farther INTO the stroke of the shock (and again, from post above) yes droop and unloading of shock/strut (eg in a cresting situation) ... It's really not a hair I'd like to split in this discussion .

Struts/Shocks don't fully extend, in use, as much as many people may believe they do.

From my conversations with damper engineers from all over the power-sports and automotive world... the IFP pressure really does not affect, to any significant degree, the ride height of a vehicle. I suspect that the ride height change in your Miata was due to the possibility that the Koni's you installed have a lower spring-perch that sits closer to the centerline of the hub, which would lower your car. It seems, when you are comparing a used stock 'IFP gas-shock" shock to a new 'IPF gas shock' (stock replacement or aftermarket)... it will seem like a significant force when you are trying to compress by hand.... but given the overall forces of the vehicle involved here... not as much contribution as you may think.

I believe that some of the aftermarket struts actually state

My take, an OPINION.

 

More along the lines of Travel INSTALLED in the car.... weight of the car sitting on tires. Taking a measurement from bench-measured COMPRESSED to a fixed point on the strut/shock body... then taking that same measurement on the shock/strut with it in the car, bearing the weight. That is where the stroke, in this discussion starts.

Driving down the road, a lowered car will generally have less travel in the shock, and be less able to deal with 'events' as your tires roll over the 'bumps' in driving.... also, some shocks... like the FSD's are position-sensitive in terms of function in use. The vertical CG of the car does affect the handling of a car... but this consideration, IMO,

All of this goes out the window if 'stance' and appearance is more important that actual performance in the world in which you are operating the car... a sticky wicket if you are doing a lot of tracking AND driving the same car to work on Monday. In those cases, I've seen people defer to better track handling over 'life on the street'...with bent rims increasing 'rattles' and diminished performance with the car, as par for the course.

 

Another way to measure for travel, installed... is to put an tiny zip tie on the shock shaft with car unloaded (shaft extended)... and Slowly lowering the car back down onto the ground... that will slide the zip-tie up the shaft a bit... and then you unload that corner... and measure the distance from the bottom of the zip tie to the top of the shock.

For example.... not actual numbers... Say you have a given shock/strut setup on a car.... say the stock R56 MCS shocks/struts/springs/mounts....
And for discussion arbitrarily choose 3" of shaft-travel.... and you lower the ride height by 1" (seems to popular lowered amount in this MINI-verse)... you have now lost 1/3" of your suspensions travel-ability to deal with irregularities in the road. On smooth surfaces, like a race track... not a big deal... but on the street... 'WAY big deal' IMO.
Is the marginal gain of lowering an already low CG in terms of body-roll become the Achilles-heel in terms of overall handling and performance.

Most of the 'seat of the pants' experience relate 'flat' cornering to 'higher performance' which may not, or may, be an accurate observation.







.

 

So, to start, at least, somewhere....

Question:
Do the Koni 'Yellow's', alone, lower the R56-MCS car, At All ??
All other things the same (springs, mounts etc)


.

 

What is your end goal in this discussion?

 

The zip tie only gets you half the info that you want and only the rebound part of the shock travel, not the compression part which seems to be what you looking for. It seems that the easiest way to do this would be to assemble the struts without the spring and measure the compression distance. I believe this is what the guy did to measure this on the F56 with the JCW pro suspension (coilovers) vs the base suspension. Also, what he found was that the JCW suspension on that car could be lowered, to a point, without loosing compression stroke length from what the base suspension has. So it seems that a well designed coilover or aftermarket shock could be used to lower the car without loosing compression travel as compared to the base suspension.

There a number of posts here on NAM where people cite a distance for wheel travel for the R56. I have come across these in discussions about fitting wheels and tires. From my poor memory I recall a number like 2” for the compression part of the wheel travel.

I wish I knew more about suspension design than I do. But I believe that lowering a car has more than just a “marginal” impact on the car’s handling. It lowers both the CG and the roll center, both of which improve handling (to a point with roll center) I take my lead for what works on a MINI from the car’s designers, figuring they really do know what works. With the JCW suspension the car is lowered by 10mm (~3/8”). This is clearly not about looks as it will be barely noticeable. So, the other option is that it actually does affect handling in a way that is significant.

 

Thanks for the replies. Good discussion so far.

The zip tie... if used from fully extended with car suspended...lowered gently with full weight on the car... then lifted again without moving or bouncing the car will give you the static compressed "sag or droop" measurement which will give the practical suspension travel.

When we lower our cars with springs on a given damper... that reduces travel in the shock.. which can play a big roll in real world performance... I'd like to see the degree to which that changes the dampers ability perform.

And, I agree that lowering a car CAN and does affect the handling of a car... but for good or bad. If we are talking about only smooth roads... then that can really play a roll.
Often you see people lowering their cars...mostly with springs that have higher spring rates and lower installed heights.... and use that to say that their car handles 'better' because it's 'lowered'. 'Better' is subjective... and I've really not seen an evaluation on the R56 platform that was done using a given spring that has been cut in order to lower installed length and lowers the car to isolate the effects of simply lowering the car. Better spring design can take this into account....But, lower might not be 'better' outside of narrow track testing...using in the real world. Once you hit the jounce bumper (or 'hard bottom' a shock with no jounce bumper0...all the spring tech and damping control go out the window for this discussion. IMO, suspension has have range of movement appropriate for the conditions it will see to maximize performance without sacrificing other very important characteristics in the environment it operates in.

Yes lowering the CG will have an effect on the car... but these cars already have decent lower CG's to start with. How much that affects and at what point do diminishing returns happen... Something that I really don't see in al the marking hype that focuses mostly on 'track performance'

I really like the presentations that WMW has put on this forum with the FSD shocks from Koni... and especially since the FSD's can only use a stock spring to get any decent performance out of them...hence stock ride height.... The few cars that I rode in with the FSD's handled very nearly as well as my Ohlins equipped R56... and better than most significantly lowered R56 cars I've been in with expensive shocks/struts.

I'd like to find out just what percentage of useable travel disappears when we lower our cars... on these R56's an inch lower is nearly an inch of lost travel. And, since we're not talking about Dakar-racers with 20" of travel here... more like 3 or so inches...loosing 30% of that can play a big roll in making the turn with a bump/pothole/object in it ...or ending up in the sign-post.

Now... if the aftermarket 'lowered' damper can maintain good travel lengths, and car can still give that travel before hitting bodywork/chassis-parts and bottoming-out... then we have a whole new dimension to this discussion about R56's specifically... a lowered CG with respectable levels of travel... Most of the lowered cars I've seen and talked to the owners of were not concerned so much with overall performance/safety than they were with 'stance' and looks... and how 'Flat she rails around a smooth corner'.
Will 10mm change much in terms of travel... probably not... but many of the lowering kits (springs, Shocks/struts, coilovers) are in the 1" and more category.

I read and hear a lot of people talking about how their lowered car 'handles' so much better than before they lowered it... but they changed so much more than just the ride height...they changed rates/design of springs to do it, camber/caster....and a swaybar and different tires often at the same time. So, really most would have no idea on what 'lowering' the car did for them.

When I moved my Ohlins R&T set back up to their recommended, engineered, ride height...which is 16mm (5/8") lower than stock... I felt that the cars handling greatly improved from it's lowest position I bought the car, with same Ohlins setup, with at 1.25" lower than stock setting... I gained back a fair amount of travel....which on the California Roads and Highways pays off.


.




.

 

But again... I'd like to find out what Factory strut/shock rested-state compression available-travel lengths are... and is that different for a Koni yellow with the same springs/mounts/tires?



I am curious...as I'd bet a fellow NAM'r or shock as done this... ..if you were to remove the springs all together on on an R56-MCS...lower the car to rest on the tires... would the tires or susppesion compontens hard contact any body parts... especially with the steering run lock-to lock.
How would that fare for both the stock shocks and the Koni Yellows?



.


.

 

I wonder if the compression stroke might find limits other than the dimensions of the shock itself. For example bump stops, or even coil bind?

You might have noted my ruminations over optimizing ride height for my own setup, which process is still in progress.

During corner weighting which will be my next step, I aim to measure the front lower control arm angle. It should rise slightly from the outer end upward to the chassis and the difference of only a few degrees apparently matters.

Since I do not give a rat's patootie about appearance, but need every bit of cornering I can get for autocross, I am only down 10mm from JCW OEM specs, but even that may not help.

The puzzle is that it seems that dropping the CG for the car by an inch may drop the front roll center two or more inches - creating a negative jacking force at the LCA mounts and increasing the roll moment of the car.

Not a thread jack, it just seemed you are looking at somewhat the same challenge, and starting from an interesting question.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

Charlie, Looks like you've really been doing your homework... I like it!

Yea.... for me... just trying to collect info here so that I can make better decisions with my MINI... and others can benefit from this sincere open discussion.

Lowering a cars CG... MAY have a benficial effect...but what are both the PROS and the CONS of this....The pros are most discussed... especially since it is human nature to justify efforts and expenses... but the compromises may outweigh the benefits.

Informed consideration is good... there is just a real black hole with info regarding suspensions for methodical evaluations in real world setups and use.





.

 

I may have found something related to your quest...

Is this what you are lookin for?
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...on-travel.html

 

You commented about the effect of lowering the CG and it might be marginal. My initial thought was that it is more than marginal. Then I got to thinking about how lowering with springs or adjustable shocks lowers both the CG and the roll center. This should have a noticeable effect. Then I got to thinking about each and what is affected by each.

Roll center and CG are interrelated through the moment arm between them. Roll center is related to the car through the geometry the suspension. CG is a physical location within the car with respect to ground. Because of that the CG can be lowered without affecting the roll center. A simple way to do it is to do this is to use smaller dia tires, which I have done. On the track I use 2 sets of tires and wheels on my R56. One set are 225-45 tires on 17” wheels. These are 25” in dia. The other set are 205-55 tires on 15” wheels. These are 23” in dia. The smaller wheel/tires lower the CG of the car by an inch.

IMHO - I can’t say I notice a difference in the car’s handling from just the lower CG. Maybe it is there, but I don’t notice it. There are other reasons for going with the taller or shorter tires/wheels (mostly different “gearing” and also lighter weight), that I do notice.

So lowering the car with springs or adjustable shocks changes the relationship between roll center and CG. However, I don’t know how that relationship works. Maybe Charlie has the answer to that one...

 

Keeping this thread on track... AND, I'm finding the above posts helpful.

Using stock R56-MCS springs/mounts.
Q1) What travel is available (NOT including sag/droop) to a stock shock/strut on an R56-MCS resting on it's tires on level ground?

Q2) What travel is available (NOT including sag/droop) to a Koni Yellow shock/strut on an R56-MCS resting on its tires on level ground?

For this discussion, at this point, I am not interested in what the Travel-measurement is with any other shock/spring combos.
Though it may be good info for future conversations in this thread.

This info on R56-MCS shock/strut-TRAVEL, I've not seen published anywhere (but would welcome any links)



.

 

Sorry, but I am a bit lost in what you are looking for. The post that my link takes you to says that the stock R56 travel is the following:

Is that not what you are looking for with respect to the stock R56?

 

Still curious what your goal is with this thread.... Might help getting the information you want.