oh btw i am going to get some lowering springs for my r56, simply because i am too cheap to purchase a coilover kit

 

But this thread has been driving me nuts for a while now. I just got my R56 MCS with Sport Suspension on Tuesday & I'm agonizing about which mods to do before autocross season (BMWCCA - Just a casual AXer & I like their rules + 8 runs). So far, it seems as if several of the lowering springs might be close enough to the sport suspension's spring rate for the shocks to work OK, *BUT* it just doesn't matter. Why? Because if Ryphile is correct in his [0.2" before it hits the bumpstops] measurement, then if a spring actually lowers the car 1.2", the bumpstops will already be compressed by 1". In that case, who cares if the spring is progressive - what will the effective spring rate of the spring + bumpstop be?

I have a set of the bumpstops ("additional shock absorber") on order in case I get brave with my hacksaw/grinder, etc - they're $5.88 ea. frt & $12.76 ea. rear from Morristown. So far I have the front ones, and they're only about 2.36" tall and not all that soft, so I can't believe they're compressed 1" at rest and the car still feels like it has any suspension at all. I really want all this to sort out so that I can have a lower & slightly stiffer, slightly less travel suspension - I know I'll have to end up with harsher bumpstops to do that. By now, you've probably guessed I'm too cheap for coilovers.

BTW, on my R53, I thought the H&R 19mm rear swaybar perfectly complimented the stock sport suspension front bar - could go between too much & not enough rotation with a little tire pressure tweaking. It seems that some places are selling the R53 RSB as OK for the R56, but H&R's own site says they have a new one under development. Anyone know if the H&R 19mm RSB actually fits the R56? I think their teflon-lined bushings are great.

<Must change sig... Oh - must sell R53...>

 

My parts didn't come in yesterday; delay of game --- 15 yard penalty to Harrison Motorsports.

 

It's been irking me a bit too at how much misinformation is out there. You're spot-on that the bumpstops are most of the spring rate, even on a stock setup, and that system is hugely progressive. I don't know why some people think progressive is a bad word [unless we're talking music, LOL, j/k!].

The stock dampers are designed to be used with the stock bumpstops; I wouldn't change them at all when you lower your car, and I definitely wouldn't cut them; that'll just make the ride harsher because you're just lowering the effective spring rate [sounds counter-intuitive at first I know]. What I would do however, is keep that extra set of bumpstops on the shelf because it's a good idea to replace them more often than with stock springs as you're using them much more with lowering springs. What kind of interval? I'm not sure because I haven't done a good study on it. My gut says every 20k miles is plenty proactive.


Cheers,
Ryan

P.S. After trading PM's with TM3, I can see where his convictions come from. He was assuming the factory bumpstops are hard pieces and not highly compliant foam that is fully engineered into the factory suspension [much like the original Austin Mini's!]. Knowing his perspective, I can see where he's coming from. Hard 'stops just aren't part of a stock MINI's equation. Soft 'stops, like the MINI's, are part of the suspension stroke; this is a system called "bumpstop active".

 

i got the eibach installed today.....on my non sport original

i only feel the difference when it's running on highway that the car really following the curve, some like go kart feel....

there is not much diff on my bumpy road home...

i am going to upload some pics into my gallery

i like how it looks now...

 

Amen brutha!

 

Post them pics son!

 

If it helps any...the guy in dpcars.net claims no gains after installing springs...I believe he has the lap records to prove it also

FIRST POST! WOOT!!

 

I don't know about track times (and at this time don't want to). I do know the Mach V springs on my R56 (sport suspension, LSD, stock runflat performance tires, intake, exhaust, ECU)

1. virtually eliminate torque steer
2. make the car look so much better

And that's what I was looking for. Hard to believe lowering the car 1.25" doesn't do something to lower the center of gravity...but I'll leave that up to the experts!

 

It lowers the sprung Cg exactly 1.25", because that's how much you lowered the car! The roll center, however, isn't as cleanly translated without drafting the suspension arm geometry. Nevertheless, enjoy your new setup!

 

I'm goin craaaazzzyyy! Have had Steeler a few weeks now and was going to put some Eibach springs on him but now I am super confused. I have the sport suspension with LSD. . .soooo. . .I don't know what to do now. Can anyone clear my mind for me?

 

if youre going for looks then i say go for it...atleast everyone can agree that itll make the ride look way better performance wise there are those that claimed benefits (those who claimed benefits never provided track time) and there are those that claimed that it did nothing and actually slowed them down on the track (www.dpcars.net is one with a negative claim)

 

Wow that settles it, a data point of one on an old-gen MINI with undisclosed springs.

This may be a shock to some, but not all lowering springs have a chance in hell to perform better than stock. KW, M7, H&R all increase understeer in terms of handling on the R53 because the stiffen the front springs and/or soften the rear rates. This random dpcars.net website is not relevant to the R56. One data point not validate someones paranoid fear of the aftermarket on a different chassis.

In case you FORGOT to read that guys blog:

At least read the guys blog before you glue his site to your agenda.

 

Due to financial reasons maybe Alta 22 rear sway bar and front strut brace? Then later on coilovers? How much difference is there with the front cross brace? and is necessary?(i.e. how much of a difference does it make)

 

i did read his blog and from what i remember his track time havent changed much before and after the install. his time before the install was 1:33.17 and after he installed it it was at 1:33.8 and has been consistent through out his page ( so dont read one paragraph and make a statement). And why shouldnt i base it on his blog since its the only thing that has numbers rather than "seat feel" and if you or anyone have anything to prove other wise then please post im interested and im sure many that are reading this thread is. And if youve read my post i said that there are those that claims benefits and there are those that claims that it did nothing, which means that its open to the readers opinion. And about his no name springs, judging from the way he percieves the sport im willing to bet that he wouldnt get anything budget. Hey heres an idea lets have a poll for the people who track or autocross and see if they think springs alone is beneficial to their time and performance or does it not do anything other than aesthetics. oh and forgive me for making this topic irrelevant for the r56 because i saw this as a mini forum and forgot to seperate the two.

 

The spring brand, and thus the rates, are hugely critical to performance. Why this isn't sinking in is worrisome. Obviously the blogger chose a poorly engineered spring set, regardless of your impression of his perception. You shouldn't base your R56 opinion on his blog because he has an R53, not an R56. That right there is a red flag; you must see that.

You have 5 posts here on NAM. Hardly a track record, with no introduction of yourself, and a very glaring "oops" of asking if ALTA's R56 MCS turbo kit works on an R56 MC. You asked me to look at your posts, and all I see are repeated references to a blog for a guy that is really hard on brakes that refuses to use an adequate brake setup and hasn't a clue what brand springs he's running.

Do I have anything to prove otherwise? No. I've been there, done that. If you want to deny yourself the potential for better performance, please do. My disgruntlement lies with people getting bent on having one ill-educated experience and then smearing that stupidity across the world so nobody can "suffer their fate". Do some homework, learn the hard way, do more homework, and then ask those that have been there for real-world advice. We were all n00bs once, but for goodness sake, realize that we're all not newbies.

 

sigh my friend...where did you get that someone is smearing stupidity across the world when noone was trying to persuade others of anything? where did you read that anyone has told anyone to or not to install springs? All ive posted was another persons opinion and experience with the springs...yes i agree that the spring rate yada yada is important with performance and that its a r53 and not a r56 (stated in the previous post already) And what does someones post amount have to do anything with....ANYTHING? all it shows is the amount of time one has ...noone has asked you to prove anything, all that was asked of you was to share whatever knowledge you have with others (but maybe that was too much to ask). Noone is arguing with you so....relax and stop thinking so much


besides my message to tedbone was simply that everyone agrees that lowering springs will improve the looks so if thats what he was going for then im for it 100%. But not everyone agrees that it makes any performance gains REGARDLESS OF BRAND thats it...whats wrong with that? and when was it ever wrong for someone to ask questions that they are unclear of...geez maybe people should think twice before asking a question on this site in fear of being called a "noob". besides wth makes your answer so much better because seriously it was no different than mine.


lets not waste each others time with this any further and just drop it

 

seriously we should really start a poll with trackers and autoexers about performance with just springs being pointless, bad for stock shocks, etc or is it really the cheaper alternative. Im sure many would be pleased with this poll (if there isnt one already).

 

Ryephile,

I didn't understand that post when you first made it, and I'm still confused. How can putting in shorter springs reduce rebound travel (which is what I believe you call "uptravel" in your post)?

<snip>

EDIT - I re-read your other post again, paying more attention to the actual measurements you took. It looks likes you're using "uptravel" to mean *compression*, and "downtravel" to mean *rebound*. If that's the case, then yes - I can see from your measurements that the R56 doesn't have much *compression* travel from the factory, and lowering springs will only reduce that amount.

 

now this im not totally sure but i dont think it works like that...i believe it rebounds to the springs height...for example a 4 inch travel strut with a 3 inch spring would sit at the spring height of 3 inches and compress to whatever the spring is when compressed and rebounds back to the height of the springs which in this case is 3 inches...unless you hit a really hard bump or take the load off of the suspensions. well i tried but i bet ryephile can provide a more accurate answer

 

I've already edited my post. My confusion came from Ryephile's use of "uptravel" and "downtravel" instead of the more-standard "compression travel" and "rebound travel". Once I looked at his numbers again and realized my mistake, I agree with everything he's said. If the stock R56 suspension only has 0.2" of compression travel in the front and 1.0" of compression travel in the rear before you hit the bumpstops, then using springs that are shorter than stock without going with a MUCH higher spring rate is going to mean that you'll be riding on the bumpstops pretty much all the time.

EDIT - I should also mention that in the portion of my first post that I edited out (but which was quoted in your reply), when I was referring to the "rest position" of the piston within the strut, I was referring to the position of the piston within the strut *with the car's weight on the suspension*, not where the piston would be if you were just holding the spring/strut combo in your hand before installing it.

So, if the strut piston is right in the middle of the available total travel while just supporting the car's weight, putting on shorter springs (without changing the spring rate) will decrease the available compression travel, and increase the available rebound travel by the same amount.

Unfortunately, it appears that the stock R56 strut/spring combo uses up most of the total strut travel just supporting the static weight of the car. From Ryephile's post in his other thread, the front struts on the R56 can extend (rebound) 3.1" from the static rest position before running out of travel, but they can only compress 0.2" from the rest position before hitting the stops. In the rear, the struts can extend 2.6" before running out of travel, but they can only compress 1.0" before hitting the stops. That means that if you use 1" shorter springs that have the same spring rate (stiffness) as the stock springs, with the car just sitting still, you'll be barely resting on the bump stops in the rear, and you'll be compressing the front bump stops by as much as 0.8". And that's before you actually drive the car and put any kind of dynamic loads on the suspension.

 

ok

 

Well, the H&R springs, H-sport comp rsb, & H-sport camber links went in on Sunday. I had it aligned yesterday at a shop that does many track and race cars.
The car really runs like a champ now.
The floaty feeling is gone, the double-thwap sway/roll in multi-twisties is totally gone. You go into a series of curves and it stays on track and ready for the next one; there's no transition wait required while the car stops rolling.
I'm not feeling any bump-stop harshness that's been talked about; we checked at the shop yesterday and it doesn't look like it's beating the bumpers ---- I'll keep an eye on it and report on it as I thrash the car some more.
I live at the bottom of the Georgia mountains and get up there very regularly. And I don't behave...



My two buddies during the install:

 

This is correct. I just want to restate that the bumpstops are big squishy soft foam. They act as a 2nd spring in the system, so it's not inherently evil that the car is resting or compressing them, just know that the suspension gets much more progressive the more they're compressed. The big reason the MINI handles so much better after lowering springs is primarily because of the increased effective spring rate of using the bumpstops more.

Sorry for being confusing with my uptravel/downtravel versus compression/rebound terminology. The previous set is what is commonly used in R/C car racing which I was I grew up with.